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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, prior to the incidents, the applicant had nothing short of a stellar record. The applicant was promoted to E-5 within two years and had been recommended by the 1SG to attend the E-6 Board. The applicant received multiple awards for hard work and service. The applicant also served two tours in Iraq. The incidents happened shortly after the applicant returned from the second tour in Iraq in 2010. During the second deployment the applicant and spouse decided to end their marriage. The divorce became very ugly and spending time with the children was nonexistent. This was a very emotional and confusing time in the applicant's life. During this time, the applicant received orders to transfer to HHC 82nd CAB. After reporting, there was very little to do. The unit was overstaffed, and the applicant was not assigned any tasks. In November 2010, one of the Soldiers was going through the process to reclass due to not having a security clearance. The Soldier approached the applicant and asked if the applicant could input the new ASVAB scores. The Soldier gave the applicant a signed document stating the Soldier had retaken the ASVAB and included the new scores. The applicant entered the new scores into Emilpo. The next day the applicant was called into the Commander's and 1SG's office. When the applicant arrived at the office, the Soldier was crying in the hallway and kept saying sorry sergeant. When the applicant was asked if the applicant updated the scores the applicant stated yes. The applicant was asked if the applicant knew it was a forged document. The applicant replied no and was accused of knowing. The applicant was informed the Soldier stated it was their idea and the Soldier would be receiving an Article 15 and demoted. The applicant responded, it was not the Soldier's idea, it was mine. The applicant did not want the Soldier getting badly punished because the Soldier had a family and children. The chain of command did not listen to the applicant. The applicant was told they would also be receiving an Article 15 and reduced to E-4 for the alleged role. The applicant was sent back to the section and treated like the applicant had murdered someone. Within a year, the applicant went from a married NCO with a family to an NCO which was treated more poorly than a recruit. The unit knew the applicant had just returned from a second deployment and was going through a divorce and never offered any help or counseling. On 24 November, the applicant was released for lunch and had enough, the depression and anxiety of not knowing was too much. The applicant jumped in the truck and started driving trying to figure out what happened in life. The applicant contemplated suicide. On 10 December, the applicant returned to the unit. It seemed like no one cared about why the applicant left. The applicant believed being failed on all levels with the new unit. The applicant could not sleep at night and was getting one to two hours of sleep a night and was not getting to formation on time and reprimanded. The applicant accepts full responsibility for the actions. The applicant completed the first full term of enlistment beyond honorable and is willing to do it again. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 18 January 2023, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's PTSD diagnoses mitigating the failures to report (FTR) and AWOL offenses and the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, outweighed the remaining misconduct of forgery. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. 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: Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court- Martial/AR 635-200, Chapter 10/ KFS/RE-4 upgraded by the ARDB on 24 October 2001 to Secretarial Authority / AR 635-200, Paragraph 5-3 / JFF / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 11 May 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date and Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): On 18 April 2011, the applicant was charged with: Violating Article 86, UCMJ. Specification 1: On or about 2 March 2011, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty. Specification 2: On or about 11 March 2011, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty, to wit: 0630 accountability formation. Specification 3: On or about 11 March 2011, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty, to wit: 0900 work call. Specification 4: On or about 16 March 2011, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty. Specification 5: On or about 30 March 2011, without authority, absent oneself from the unit and did remain so absent until on or about 11 April 2011. Specification 6: On or about 12 April 2011, without authority, absent oneself from the unit and did remain so absent until on or about 14 April 2011. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 15 April 2011 (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) Administrative Separation Board: N/A (5) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 28 April 2011 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 19 December 2007 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / High School Graduate / 103 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 42A20, Human Resources / 6 years, 11 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 5 December 2003 - 3 February 2006 / HD (Break in Service) RA, 7 June 2006 - 18 December 2007 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (1 June 2007 - 19 July 2008; 21 August 2009 - 6 July 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-2CS, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-2 g. Performance Ratings: 1 June 2008 - 31 May 2009 / Among the Best 1 June 2009 - 31 May 2010 / Among the Best h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 29 September 2009, for disobeying a lawful order from a senior noncommissioned officer on or about 2 September 2009. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $520 pay for one month; and extra duty for 14 days. Twelve Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)," to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 24 November 2010; From "AWOL" to "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," effective 24 December 2010; From "DFR," to "PDY," effective 18 January 2011; From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 14 February 2011; From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 17 February 2011; From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 30 March 2011; From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 11 April 2011; From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 12 April 2011; From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 14 April 2011; From "PDY," to "Confined by Military Authorities (CMA)" effective 14 April 2011; From "CMA" to "PDY," effective 29 April 2011; and, From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 3 May 2011. FG Article 15, dated 25 February 2011, for being AWOL from on or about 14 February 2011 until on or about 17 February 2011; failed to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty on or about 2 February 2011; being AWOL from on or about 24 November 2010 until on or about 18 January 2011; and, with intent to deceived, alter an official record on or about 17 November 2010. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4; forfeiture of $1146 pay per month for two months; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. Charge sheet as described in paragraph 3c(1). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 38 days: AWOL, 14 February 2011 - 16 February 2011 / NIF AWOL, 30 March 2011 - 13 April 2011 / NIF CMA, 14 April 2011 - 28 April 2011 / Released from Confinement AWOL, 3 May 2011 - 11 May 2011 / NIF j. AHMRR Listed or Applicant' Provided PTSD / TBI / or Other Behavioral Health Condition(s): Applicant provided a statement that asserts Depression, Anxiety, and PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; table of contents; cover letter; DD Form 214; ERB; self-authored statement; DD Form 4187; Orders 117-36; Permanent Orders #016- 001; four award certificates; Orders 169-046; college transcripts; DA Form 1059; two training certificates; two DA Forms 2166-8; divorce decree; timeline; Order Number 263-128; DA Form 2627; DD Form 458. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is currently seeking help with service- related PTSD. 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 5, provides for the basic separation of enlisted personnel for the convenience of the government. (5) Paragraph 5-1, states that a Soldier being separated under this paragraph will be awarded a characterization of service of honorable, general (under honorable conditions), or an uncharacterized description of service if in entry-level status. (6) Chapter 5-3 (Chapter 15 current regulation) provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army's best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary's approved designee as announced in updated memorandums. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes), in effect at the time, provided 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 identified the SPD code of "JFF" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5, paragraph 5-3, Secretarial Authority. 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 record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends good service, including two combat tours. The Board will consider the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. There is no evidence in the Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) the applicant ever sought assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The applicant submitted a statement that reflects that the applicant spouse filed for a divorce after the applicant returned from the applicant's deployment to Iraq. The applicant contends the command never offered any help or counseling. The evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting to Army standards by providing counseling and the imposition of non-judicial punishment. The applicant's AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends receiving treatment for service-connected PTSD. The applicant's AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis. The AMHRR does not contain a mental status evaluation (MSE). The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow the applicant to continue being a contributor to society and to return to school and better provide for the applicant's family. Eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill 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 applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 601-210, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of "4." An RE code of "4" cannot be waived, and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. The applicant contends currently seeking help with service-related PTSD. 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. 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's PTSD and Depression mitigated the applicant's original basis for separation (AWOL/FTR) that warranted a previous Board's discharge characterization upgrade to General Discharge, and now warrants reconsideration of applicant's discharge. The Board Medical Advisor also found that the applicant had PTSD, Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) and Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) diagnosis that may mitigate the applicant's discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board Medical Advisor found that the applicant's PTSD, GAD, and MDD existed during service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor considered liberal consideration and opined that the prior ADRB case already applied the service-connected PTSD which is partially mitigating, FTRs and AWOLs were mitigated, but forgery was not. The prior Board granted relief with a characterization upgrade to General. After an updated review of records, there are no further diagnoses, experiences, or service connections to recommend any additional changes. (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 conditions outweighed the unmitigated basis for applicant's separation - forgery - for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends good service, including two combat tours. The Board considered the totality of the applicant's service record and determined the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, outweighed the medically unmitigated offense of forgery; thus, relief was warranted. (2) The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The Board considered this contention non-persuasive during its deliberations, as forgery has no connection to the applicant's family issues. (3) The applicant contends the command never offered any help or counseling. The Board considered this contention and determined that, based on the applicant's official records that reflect numerous counseling statements and non-judicial punishment to rehabilitate the applicant, the evidence counters the contention, so the contention held no weight in the Board's decision to grant an upgrade. (4) The applicant contends receiving treatment for service-connected PTSD. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant's PTSD mitigated the applicant's FTRs and AWOL offenses, which, combined with the totality of the applicant's service record, warranted relief to the characterization of the applicant's discharge. (5) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board considered this contention and determined that the Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. (6) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow the applicant to continue being a contributor to society and to return to school and better provide for the applicant's family. The Board considered this contention and determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare or VA loans, do 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. (7) The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. The Board considered this contention and voted to maintain the RE-code as a RE-4 because the applicant's service- limiting PTSD renders the applicant ineligible for military service. c. The Board majority determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's PTSD diagnoses mitigating the failures to report (FTR) and AWOL offenses and the totality of the applicant's service record to include length and quality of service, to include combat service, outweighing the remaining misconduct of forgery. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board majority voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's PTSD mitigated the applicant's misconduct of FTRs and AWOL offenses and the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, outweighed the remaining misconduct of forgery. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code since they are recorded as Secretarial Authority/JFF due to a prior Board upgrade, and there is no further upgrade possible. (3) The RE code will not change, as the applicant's mitigating PTSD is service-limiting. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable 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 AR20210002270 1