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 uncharacterized. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, being stressed mentally and was having a hard time coping in the Army. The applicant was told the MOS 91 Delta would be there to help people not hurt them. The applicant was raised as a Jehovah’s Witness and taught to love thy neighbor. The applicant spoke with the drill sergeant who advised the applicant to go to sick call to get help. The applicant started crying every day and had frequent nose bleeds daily. Not knowing what to do the applicant went to a friend’s house instead of the next duty station. The applicant spoke with the retired Air Force uncle. The uncle arranged for the applicant to return to be discharged. The applicant has been struggling with medical and behavioral health issues, such as anxiety, depression, and Post traumatic Stress Disorder. The applicant also requests medical compensation and benefits for getting hurt during basic training. The applicant’s medical issues have exhausted all their financial resources. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 18 April 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 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 / Uncharacterized b. Date of Discharge: 4 August 2006 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date and Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): On 6 April 2006, the applicant was charged with: Violating Article 86, UCMJ, for being AWOL from 4 February 2006 to 4 April 2006. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 7 April 2006 (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: Uncharacterized (5) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 20 July 2006 / Uncharacterized 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 31 August 2005 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 / High School Graduate / 104 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / None / 9 months, 3 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c. Three Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY),” to “Absent Without Leave (AWOL),” effective 4 February 2006; From “AWOL” to “Dropped From Rolls (DFR),” effective 6 March 2006. From “Dropped From Rolls (DFR),” to “Present for Duty (PDY),” effective 4 April 2006. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 59 days (AWOL, 4 February 2006 – 4 April 2006) / Surrendered to Military Authorities. j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; DA Form 4187 with brief; Memorandum For Commander Request for Discharge, dated 13 July 2006; Memorandum For Commander Request for Discharge, dated 17 July 2006; PCF Chapter 10 Case Summary; Memorandum For AWOL; DA Form 4187, dated 4 February 2006; ARBA letter. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 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) Paragraph 3-9 states a separation will be described as entry-level with service uncharacterized if processing is initiated while a Soldier is in entry-level status. (4) 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. (5) 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.) (6) 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. (7) Paragraph 10-8c, stipulates when characterization of service under other than honorable conditions is not warranted for a Soldier in entry-level status, service will be uncharacterized. (8) Glossary defines entry-level status for RA Soldiers is the first 180 days of continuous AD or the first 180 days of continuous AD following a break of more than 92 days of active military service. 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 an upgrade to 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 uncharacterized discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. The applicant contends being stressed and struggling with medical and behavioral health issues, such as anxiety, depression, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Also, the applicant contends getting hurt during basic training. The applicant’s AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD or Behavioral Health issues. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention. The applicant contends being told the MOS 91 Delta would be there to help people not hurt them. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends being hurt during basic training and requests medical benefits and compensation Eligibility for veteran’s benefits does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 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: adjustment disorder with depressed mood. Additionally, the applicant asserts PTSD, anxiety and depression, which may be sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a condition that could mitigate or excuse the discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder on active duty, in addition to applicant’s assertions of PTSD and anxiety/depression noted above. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration to applicant-asserted PTSD/anxiety and depression. There is evidence of adjustment disorder in her medical records. Applicant’s assertion of PTSD is liberally considered; however, the applicant has provided no medical evidence supporting the diagnosis. Without additional medical evidence the Board Medical Advisor determined the applicant’s asserted PTSD does not mitigate the applicant’s discharge. Furthermore, an adjustment disorder of the nature documented in applicant’s records would not mitigate AWOL. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s adjustment disorder with depressed mood, PTSD, anxiety and depression outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – AWOL – for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends being stressed and struggling with medical and behavioral health issues, such as anxiety, depression, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Also, the applicant contends getting hurt during basic training. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s struggles with an injury during basic training, medical and behavioral health issues, does not mitigate the applicant’s AWOL as the Army affords many avenues to Soldiers including seeking separation for hardship. (2) The applicant contends being told the MOS 91 Delta would be there to help people not hurt them. The Board voted after considering the contention and finding no evidence of the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. In this case, the Board determined that this contention does not mitigate or excuse the applicant’s AWOL. (3) The applicant contends being hurt during basic training and requests medical benefits and compensation. 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. c. The Board determined The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. The applicant has exhausted their appeal options available with ADRB. However, the applicant may still apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. 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 voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s adjustment disorder with depressed mood, and self-asserted PTSD, anxiety and depression did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of AWOL. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change 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 AR20210002140 1