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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, having problems with the spouse in Germany. The applicant’s sibling’s 12th grade graduation was coming up and the applicant was about to fly home to be with the family in California. The applicant had to pay the rent and went to the bank in Germany before the flight and there was no money in the account. The spouse, who was a higher rank (E-5), received the BAH. The applicant investigated and found out the spouse was cheating on the applicant and the reason there was no rent money was because the spouse withdrew it before the applicant, to spend it on the person the spouse was having the affair with. The applicant was devasted. The applicant still flew home and arrived in California to be with family. The applicant saw the sibling graduate. Emotionally, the applicant was having a breakdown. The applicant found out through email the spouse was cheating. The applicant began to drink and was hanging with old friends (bad influences) and the applicant spiraled out of control. The applicant was depressed and ended up in the mental ward in Sacoya Hospital in Redwood City. Eventually, the applicant was transferred to PAVAHCS, Palo Alto, for treatment. The applicant was hospitalized which was a surprise to the applicant. The applicant was on medication and was not expecting to get hospitalized. The applicant called the chain of command in Germany and believed the applicant was going to be okay. At some point while the applicant was on leave, the unit listed the applicant as AWOL. The applicant did not understand why it was done. When the applicant left PAVAHCS, the applicant knew they had to return to the Army and wanted to do so. The applicant turned their self in to Travis AFB. Travis AFB transferred the applicant to Fort Sill where, the unit called the unit in Germany to see if the applicant could return. The unit in Germany did not want the applicant back. The applicant wanted to stay in the Army however by then it was too late. The applicant was an excellent Soldier. The applicant was motivated and loyal. The unit had changed, and they had no memory of the applicant. Please consider the applicant’s state of marriage, state of mind, and emotional condition and upgrade the discharge to honorable. The applicant was a victim of the spouse’s cruelty. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 23 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 17 April 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date and Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): On 29 January 2009, the applicant was charged with: The Charge: Violating Article 86, UCMJ, for being AWOL. The Specification: The applicant did on or about 21 June 2008, without authority, absent oneself from the organization and did remain so absent until on about 21 January 2009. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 29 January 2009 (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: 25 March 2009 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 21 August 2006 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / some college / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 42F10, Human Resource Information System Management Specialist (as listed on the DD Forms 4187) / 2 years, 1 month, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: NIF g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Three Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY),” to “Absent Without Leave (AWOL),” effective 21 June 2008; From “AWOL” to “Dropped From Rolls (DFR),” effective 21 July 2008; and, From “Dropped From Rolls (DFR),” to “Present for Duty (PDY),” effective 21 January 2009. Charge sheet as described in paragraph 3c(1). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 7 months (AWOL, 21 June 2008 – 21 January 2009) / surrendered to military authorities j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Military & Veterans Affairs Office Homeless Veteran cover letter; DD Form 293; DD Form 214. 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 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (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. 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 general (under honorable conditions) discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant ever sought assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends good service. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends having a breakdown due to the spouse cheating and being hospitalized. The applicant’s AMHRR contains no documentation of a mental health diagnosis. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. The AMHRR does not contain a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends calling the chain of command while being hospitalized but the unit listed the applicant as AWOL. By the time the applicant turned their self in the unit had changed and had no memory of the applicant. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 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: Depression, Schizoaffective Disorder, PTSD related to childhood trauma, and Panic Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant was diagnosed in service with Depression. There is insufficient evidence to support that applicant’s post service diagnoses of Schizoaffective Disorder or Panic Disorder existed during military service. Finally, applicant’s PTSD is due to childhood trauma that has not been found to have been exacerbated by military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant was diagnosed in service with Depression. Applicant stopped treatment for Depression over a year prior to going AWOL and is not service connected for any BH conditions, so there is no evidence that the Depression existed at the time of the AWOL or that it contributed to the AWOL. There is insufficient evidence to support that applicant’s post service diagnoses of Schizoaffective Disorder or Panic Disorder existed during military service. Finally, applicant’s PTSD is due to childhood trauma that has not been found to have been exacerbated by military service. As such, there is no medical mitigation. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board considered the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Depression, Schizoaffective Disorder, PTSD related to childhood trauma, Panic Disorder outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – AWOL – for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends having a breakdown due to the spouse cheating and being hospitalized. Family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The Board considered this contention, but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with family issues, and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. The Board concluded that the applicant’s AWOL is not an acceptable response to family challenges, thus the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (2) The applicant contends good service. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record, but determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By going AWOL, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (3) The applicant contends calling the chain of command while being hospitalized but the unit listed the applicant as AWOL. By the time the applicant returned the unit’s personnel had changed and had no memory of the applicant. The Board considered this contention and determined there is insufficient evidence to support the applicant contacted the chain of command prior to the AWOL misconduct. The applicant was properly and equitably discharged. 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 applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s Depression, Schizoaffective Disorder, PTSD related to childhood trauma, and Panic Disorder did not completely 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, and 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 AR20210002194 1