1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: Yes 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, through counsel, requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) during service. The applicant has been diagnosed with PTSD stemming from military service by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) physician and has received service- connection disability for this condition rated at 50 percent. The applicant was separated based on misconduct. After the separation, the applicant was formally diagnosed with PTSD. The applicant is receiving treatment for PTSD from the VA Medical Center in Memphis, Tennessee and continues to experience the effects of PTSD to this day. The applicant argues that this information is sufficient to warrant a review of the military separation. The applicant requests the application be reviewed with liberal consideration to the applicant’s service- connected PTSD condition. The applicant further contends, at the time the issues occurred, the applicant was having family problems. After the deployment to Afghanistan, the applicant was suffering from PTSD and a back injury while deployed. The applicant has not been in any trouble since the misconduct. The applicant enlisted in the service directly after high school and enjoyed being in the Army. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 21 March 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: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12a / JKN / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 17 July 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 March 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant was absent without leave from 9 July 2014 until apprehended on 10 October 2014. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions / The battalion command sergeant major recommended general (under honorable conditions). (4) Legal Consultation Date: 19 March 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 19 March 2015, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 29 June 2015 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions / The separation authority did not find the applicant’s disability was the cause or substantial cause of the applicant’s absence without leave or other circumstances of the applicant’s case warrant disability processing instead of further processing for administrative discharge. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 October 2012 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / HS Graduate / 90 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 88M10, Motor Transport Operator / 6 years, 5 months, 2 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 31 October 2008 – 6 October 2010 / HD IADT, 19 January 2009 – 19 June 2009 / HD (Concurrent Service) RA, 7 October 2010 – 30 September 2012 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Afghanistan (16 July 2011 – 16 June 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM, AAM-2, MUC, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR-2, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic Mail message from K. S., Senior Specialist, American Red Cross, dated 6 March 2014, reflects the applicant requested financial assistance to travel to the applicant’s grandparent’s funeral and presented a concurrence letter with what appeared to be SFC R. J’s signature. Five Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY),” to “Absent Without Leave (AWOL),” effective date 8 March 2014; From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective date 13 March 2014; From “PDY” to “AWOL,” effective date 9 July 2014; From “AWOL” to “Dropped From Rolls (DFR),” effective date 8 August 2014; and From “DFR” to “PDY,” effective date 17 October 2014. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 13 March 2014, reflects the applicant was counseled for forgery to obtain financial assistance from American Red Cross in the amount of $1,050. The applicant denied forging SFC R. J.’s signature. Sergeant First Class (SFC) R. J.’s Sworn Statement, dated 28 May 2014, reflects SFC R. J. did not authorize any agency to loan the applicant money at any time. Military Police Report, dated 11 July 2014, reflects the applicant was investigated for desertion (Article 85, UCMJ) (off post) and AWOL (Article 86, UCMJ) (on post). Report of Return of Absentee, dated 10 October 2014, reflects the applicant’s absence began on 9 July 2014. The applicant was apprehended by civilian authorities as a deserter and returned to military control. Charge Sheet, dated 5 January 2015, reflects the applicant was charged with violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, for: Without authority being absent from the unit from 8 March 2014 to 13 March 2014; and Without authority being absent from the unit from 9 July 2014 to 10 October 2014. Agreement to Dismiss Charges, dated 5 February 2015, reflects the applicant voluntarily agreed to unconditionally waive the right to an administrative separation board upon the Government initiating separation against the applicant. The applicant agreed to plead guilty at a Field Grade Article 15 hearing to two specifications of Article 86, UCMJ for absent without leave (AWOL). In return, the Government agreed to dismiss the charges preferred against the applicant. Report of Medical History, dated 19 February 2015, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Continues to have low back pain. Field Article 15, dated 4 March 2015, for being absent from the unit (between 9 July 2014 and 10 October 2014). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $773 pay per month for two months; and extra duty for 45 days. 368th Seaport Operations Company report, undated, reflects the applicant received Red Cross Message the applicant’s sibling was murdered. The applicant requested leave beginning on 19 June 2014 and had not returned by 9 July 2014. While AWOL, the applicant requested an Army Emergency Relief (AER) loan, but it was denied. The AER agreed to purchase the applicant a plane ticket to return to the unit but was unable to because AER could not contact the applicant. Four Developmental Counseling Forms (one previously mentioned), for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 106 days: AWOL, 8 March 2014 – 13 March 2014 / NIF AWOL, 9 July 2014 – 17 October 2014 / Apprehended by Civil Authorities j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Veterans Affairs disability benefits decision, dated 10 October 2018, reflecting the applicant was rated 50 percent disability for PTSD and 10 percent for tinnitus. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; two DD Forms 293; Legal Brief; five third party statements; VA disability benefits letter; and Army Review Boards Agency, Case Management Division 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) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (4) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. (5) Paragraph 14-12a addresses minor disciplinary infractions, defined as a pattern of misconduct, consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions. 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 “JKN” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (minor infractions). 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 waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes. RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 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 applicant contends the discharge should be upgraded because PTSD affected behavior, which ultimately led to the discharge. The applicant’s current characterization for the period under review is honorable. The applicant provided medical documentation indicating the VA rated the applicant 50 percent disability for PTSD and 10 percent for tinnitus. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 6 February 2015, which indicates the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; could appreciate the difference between right and wrong; and met medical retention requirements. The applicant had been screened for PTSD and mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) with negative results. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The AMHRR reflect the command attempted to aid the applicant through the American Red Cross and the Chaplain. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 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 third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant’s good military service. 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. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that applicant is service connected for PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined PTSD is a partially mitigating condition for the applicant’s disciplinary history, specifically the charges of AWOL. Avoidance behaviors such as AWOL are part of the natural course and history of PTSD in many individuals, and per VA records the applicant’s trauma predates the dates of the AWOL and is therefore a presumed mitigator for the primary basis of separation. The current characterization of service is already honorable due to minor misconduct which appears proper and equitable. (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 though there is medical mitigation for the misconduct, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – AWOL – as the applicant’s Honorable discharge is proper and equitable. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the discharge should be upgraded because PTSD issues affected behavior, which ultimately led to the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined that since the applicant already holds an HD with Minor Infractions from a prior ARBA Board, further relief was not warranted. (2) The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined that since the applicant already holds an HD with Minor Infractions from a prior ARBA Board, further relief was not warranted. (3) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered this contention and determined that since the applicant already holds an HD with Minor Infractions from a prior ARBA Board, further relief was not warranted. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the 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 voted not to change the characterization of service due to it already being Honorable. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code 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 and the applicant’s PTSD is service limiting. ? 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 AR20210002181 1