1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant's Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is honorable. The applicant requests a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant's actions resulted from a combat related experience. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rated the applicant as 70 percent service-connected disabled. The applicant joined the Army in 2003, completed basic training, and was assigned to Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 6th Infantry Regiment, Baumholder, Germany. The applicant excelled through the ranks and was an outstanding Soldier. In November 2005, the unit deployed to Kuwait to be the Quick Reaction Force (QRF) in Iraq. The battalion was split up and scattered throughout Iraq. The applicant's company was sent to Ramadi and attached to the 101st Airborne Division seal team detachment, which performed weekly rotations at the observation post (OP), Eagle's Nest. The unit performed combat operations daily, involving heavy combat. On 18 October 2006, the applicant's best friend was killed by sniper fire and the applicant was not the same. The applicant felt guilty and hopeless. The unit redeployed to Baumholder in November 2006. During the redeployment assessment, the applicant was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury (TBI) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Around December 2006, the unit received leave to go home. While at home, the applicant lost control and began withdrawing from people. The applicant was at the airport to fly back to Germany but could not board the plane and went absent without leave (AWOL). The weeks which followed were a blur. The applicant was constantly fighting with loved ones, began to abuse alcohol, and tried to commit suicide. The applicant's brother found the applicant unresponsive and called the ambulance. The applicant was treated at Saint Peter's Hospital in New Brunswick, and transferred to Piscataway Behavioral Center for treatment for one week. After treatment, the applicant decided the applicant needed help and surrendered. The applicant's sibling is in the Army at Fort Campbell and the applicant surrendered at Fort Campbell. The applicant was informed the base behavioral health center was unable to help the applicant because the applicant was not a 101st Division Soldier. The applicant was told to surrender to the parent unit in Fort Bliss, but it was too far. The applicant surrendered to Fort Knox and was sent to the Special Processing Unit, which handled AWOL and other cases. The applicant spoke with the commanding officer and requested behavioral health help. The commanding officer told the applicant, the commander was going to do everything in the commander's power to make sure the applicant was court-martialed for desertion. The applicant explained to the Colonel, the applicant went to war and when the applicant redeployed, the applicant went on leave and went AWOL. The applicant requested mental health help, but the Colonel refused to send the applicant for a mental health evaluation. The applicant remained at the behavioral facility for a month. The applicant was the platoon leader for all the Soldiers at the facility. Eventually, the applicant was provided with the option to be discharged or be tried by court-martial. The applicant was afraid and chose a discharge. The applicant knows the applicant made mistakes and should not have been AWOL, but the applicant was broken by war and was looking for help, which never came. The applicant further details the contentions in the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 27 April 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board, based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat, post service accomplishments and applicant's PTSD mitigating applicant's AWOL basis for separation, determined the narrative reason for the applicant's separation is now inequitable. Therefore, the Board directed the issue of a new DD Form 214 changing the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code to JKN, and a change to the reentry eligibility code to 3. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board's decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 27 July 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date and Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): On 24 May 2007, the applicant was charged with: The Charge: Violating Article 86, UCMJ, for being AWOL from 9 January to 9 May 2007. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 24 May 2007 (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. (4) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (5) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 16 July 2007 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 23 October 2003 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 107 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 3 years, 5 months, 4 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Iraq - Kuwait (1 November 2005 - 31 October 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR, OSR, GWOTSM, ICM-2BSS g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The Charge Sheet as described in the previous paragraph 3c. Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Ordinary Leave (LV)," to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective date 8 January 2007; and From "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," to "Attached / Present for Duty (PDY)," effective date 9 May 2007. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 121 days (AWOL, 8 January 2007 - 8 May 2007) / Surrendered to Military Authorities j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital Emergency Medical Service Patient Care Report, dated 21 April 2007, reflecting the applicant was transported to the Saint Peter's University hospital because of an overdose. A copy of VA medical records, from 26 January 2016 to 14 November 2016, reflecting the applicant was diagnosed with: PTSD, chronic; TBI; and mild Neurocognitive Disorder because of TBI. The VA rated the applicant 70 percent service connected disabled; 50 percent for PTSD. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; two DD Forms 293; self-authored statement; VA medical documents; four photographs; numerous third party statements; assignment orders; Wikipedia information pages "6th Infantry Regiment (United States)," "Battle of Ramadi (2006)." 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant was employed as a paralegal and interpreter at a law office and has no adult criminal record. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities' last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember's date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. (4) Paragraph 10-8a stipulates a discharge under other than honorable conditions normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record during the current enlistment. (See chap 3, sec II.) (5) Paragraph 10b stipulates Soldiers who have completed entry-level status, characterization of service as honorable is not authorized unless the Soldier's record is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization clearly would be improper. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "KFS" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers' Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waivable and nonwaivable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes. RE-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaivable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests a narrative reason change. The current characterization of service for the period under review is honorable. The applicant's Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The evidence in the applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. The applicant, in consultation with legal counsel, voluntarily requested, in writing, a discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court- martial. In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense, and indicated an understanding an under other than honorable conditions discharge could be received, and the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veterans' benefits. The honorable discharge received by the applicant was appropriate under the regulatory guidance. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, with an honorable discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial," and the separation code is "KFS." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends PTSD and TBI affected behavior which ultimately led to the discharge and the VA rated the applicant 70 percent service-connected disabled. The applicant provided several medical documents reflecting the VA diagnosed the applicant with PTSD and TBI and the VA rated the applicant 70 percent service-connected disability; 50 percent for PTSD. Third party letters attested to a change in the applicant experiences during deployment and a change in the applicant's behavior after being deployed. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends the command did not provide any assistance with the applicant's mental health condition. The applicant's AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-5, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board will consider the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant requests a medical discharge. The applicant's requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within this board's purview. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. The applicant contends being employed as a paralegal and interpreter at a law office and having no adult criminal record. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant's good military service and good conduct after leaving the Army. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses/experiences: PTSD, TBI. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant is diagnosed and service connected by the VA for PTSD and TBI. Service connection establishes that the conditions existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant is diagnosed and service connected by the VA for PTSD and TBI. Given the nexus between PTSD and avoidance, applicant's PTSD likely contributed to the AWOL that led to applicant's separation. Mitigation has already been applied, and applicant has an HD. Given the full mitigation, the Board's Medical Advisor recommends a narrative reason change to JKN. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the applicant's PTSD outweighed the AWOL basis for separation for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant's PTSD mitigates applicant's discharge and voted to change the narrative reason for discharge to Misconduct (minor infractions). (2) The applicant contends PTSD and TBI affected behavior which ultimately led to the discharge and the VA rated the applicant 70 percent service-connected disabled. The Board considered this contention and determined that this contention was valid and voted to change the narrative reason for discharge to Misconduct (minor infractions) due to PTSD mitigating the applicant's AWOL charges. (3) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention and determined that this this was not an isolated incident as the applicant was AWOL for 121 days, however, the Board voted to change the narrative reason for discharge to Misconduct (minor infractions) due to PTSD mitigating the applicant's AWOL charges. (4) The applicant contends the command did not provide any assistance with the applicant's mental health condition. The Board considered this contention determined that there is insufficient evidence to support the command did not provide assistance to the applicant for their mental health contention. However, the Board voted to change the narrative reason for discharge to Misconduct (minor infractions) due to PTSD mitigating the applicant's AWOL charges. (5) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant's willingness to serve and considered this contention during board proceedings along with the totality of the applicant's service record. (6) The applicant requests a medical discharge. The Board determined that the applicant's requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of the ADRB. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using a DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. (7) The applicant contends being employed as a paralegal and interpreter at a law office and having no adult criminal record. The Board considered the applicant's post service accomplishments and determined the applicant's PTSD mitigates applicant's discharge and voted to change the narrative reason for discharge to Misconduct (minor infractions). c. The Board determined, based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat, post service accomplishments and applicant's PTSD mitigating applicant's AWOL basis for separation, determined the narrative reason for the applicant's separation is now inequitable. Therefore, the Board directed the issue of a new DD Form 214 changing the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code to JKN, and a change to the reentry eligibility code to 3. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address further issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant's contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board determined the discharge is proper and equitable as a the characterization for discharge is honorable, no further relief is available. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. (3) The Board voted to change the RE code to RE-3. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: RE-3 e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge BH - Behavioral Health CG - Company Grade Article 15 CID - Criminal Investigation Division ELS - Entry Level Status FG - Field Grade Article 15 GD - General Discharge HS - High School HD - Honorable Discharge IADT - Initial Active Duty Training MP - Military Police MST - Military Sexual Trauma N/A - Not applicable NCO - Noncommissioned Officer NIF - Not in File NOS - Not Otherwise Specified OAD - Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) - Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF - Official Military Personnel File PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE - Re-entry SCM - Summary Court Martial SPCM - Special Court Martial SPD - Separation Program Designator TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA - Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210002044 1