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 under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, suffering from PTSD. The applicant had a mental breakdown resulting from what the applicant witnessed and experienced while serving in Iraq, which affected the life and caused problems with the family. The applicant was in Iraq from 2003 to 2004, straight out of high school and at a young age. The applicant has sought counseling with the Myrtle Beach Vet Clinic about the PTSD. The applicant is no longer married because of the symptoms of PTSD and the spouse fearing what the applicant would do. The issues resulting from the PTSD caused the applicant to go AWOL from the military. An upgrade would provide help for the applicant to enable living a normal life again. The applicant further details the contentions in an allied self-authored statement provided with the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 16 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 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 18 November 2014 c. Separation Facts: d. Date and Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): On 2 October 2014, the applicant was charged with: The Charge and its Specification: Violating Article 86, UCMJ, for being AWOL from 27 November 2004 and remained absent until 22 September 2014. (1) Legal Consultation Date: 2 October 2014 (2) 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. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 7 November 2014 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 19 November 2003 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / High School Graduate / 87 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 21B10, Combat Engineer / 1 year, 2 months, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / NIF f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c. Report of Return of Absentee form reflects the applicant as a deserter from Fort Carson, whose absence began on 27 November 2004, was apprehended by Civil Authorities on 22 September 2014 in Georgetown, SC. Three Personnel Action forms reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY)” to “Absent Without Leave (AWOL),” effective 27 November 2004; From “AWOL” to “Dropped From Rolls (DFR),” effective 27 December 2004; and From “DFR” to “PDY,” effective 22 September 2014. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 9 years, 9 months, 25 days (AWOL, 27 November 2004 – 21 September 2014) / Apprehended by Civil Authorities j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of a Vet Center letter addressed to the VA Regional Office and dated 27 April 2015, rendered by a Licensed Social Worker who indicated the applicant met the “DSM-V criteria for PTSD.” 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; third-party letter; self-authored statement; and third-party statement. 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) Paragraph 3-7c states Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (5) 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. (6) 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.) 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 waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1 defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable 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 Resource Record (AMHRR) of service, the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The evidence in the applicant’s 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. The applicant contends suffering from PTSD, which resulted from witnessing and experiencing what occurred during Iraq deployment in 2003 to 2004. The applicant provided a letter from a licensed social worker with a Vet Center who indicated the applicant met the “DSM-V criteria for PTSD.” The applicant’s AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis or a record of having served in Iraq. The AMHRR is void of a Mental Status evaluation. The applicant contends having served in Iraq at a young age. The AMHRR shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. The applicant contends an upgrade would provide help for the applicant to enable living a normal life again. Eligibility for veterans’ 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. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. The third-party statements provided with the application speak of the applicant’s character coping with behavioral health issues. 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 the applicant’s the VA provider’s post-service diagnosis of combat- related PTSD existed during 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, while the applicant’s post-service VA diagnosis of combat PTSD could mitigate the applicant’s AWOL offense, the applicant’s PTSD does not mitigate the applicant’s AWOL offense because the applicant’s service record does not reflect that the applicant served in Iraq in 2004 as indicated in the VA letter The Board’s Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that, while the applicant’s post-service VA diagnosis of combat PTSD could mitigate the applicant’s AWOL offense, the applicant’s PTSD does not mitigate the applicant’s AWOL offense because the applicant’s service record does not reflect that the applicant served in Iraq in 2004 as indicated in the VA letter dated 27 April 2015 and the applicant’s statements. Rather, the VA provider diagnosis is based on the applicant’s self-report of combat service in Iraq. The applicant’s AMHRR is void of evidence supporting the applicant’s assertion of combat service. Specifically, the applicant’s DD214 does not reflect combat service. Further, the applicant’s Enlisted Record Brief reflects that the applicant was stationed stateside between the applicant’s entry date and the applicant’s last duty assignment from which the applicant was AWOL. Without additional evidence of combat service, a medical mitigation determination cannot be made. dated 27 April 2015 and the applicant’s statements. Rather, the VA provider diagnosis is based on the applicant’s self-report of combat service in Iraq. The applicant’s AMHRR is void of evidence supporting the applicant’s assertion of combat service. Specifically, the applicant’s DD214 does not reflect combat service. Further, the applicant’s Enlisted Record Brief reflects that the applicant was stationed stateside between the applicant’s entry date and the applicant’s last duty assignment from which the applicant was AWOL. Without additional evidence of combat service, a medical mitigation determination cannot be made. (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, without additional evidence supporting the applicant’s combat service, the applicant’s PTSD does not outweigh the medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – AWOL. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends suffering from PTSD, which resulted from witnessing and experiencing what occurred during Iraq deployment in 2003 to 2004. The Board considered this contention and determined that, without additional evidence supporting the applicant’s combat service, the applicant’s PTSD does not outweigh the medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – AWOL. (2) The applicant contends having served in Iraq at a young age. The Board considered this response and determined that, without additional evidence supporting the applicant’s combat service, the applicant’s PTSD does not outweigh the medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – AWOL. 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 the Board determined that, without additional evidence supporting the applicant’s combat service, the applicant’s PTSD does not outweigh the medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – AWOL. The Board did not consider any issues of impropriety as the applicant did not present any impropriety issue for the Board's consideration. Further, the Board determined that there is insufficient evidence of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by Command resulting in any inequity. 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. Therefore, the applicant’s UOTHC was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to HD. (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 AR20210002229 1