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, going absent without leave (AWOL) in 2008 because the applicant’s noncommissioned officer (NCO) held a hunting knife to the applicant’s throat and threatened the applicant’s life. The applicant was afraid and did not know what else to do. The applicant was on rear detachment and the E-6 was the ranking officer. Staff Sergeant (SSG) D. S. threatened the applicant’s life. The applicant called the military police a few months later but SSG D. S. was out of the service. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 9 February 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: 8 May 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date and Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): On 5 March 2011, the applicant was charged with: The Charge, Violating Article 86, UCMJ, for being AWOL from 20 March 2011 to 29 February 2012. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 5 March 2012 (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: Undated / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 9 February 2005 / 4 years / The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is void of any reenlistment document retaining the applicant on active duty after the original enlistment. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 116 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92W10, Water Treatment Specialist / 6 years, 3 months, 19 days / The DD Form 214 reflects the applicant was on excess leave for 64 days from 6 March 2012 to 8 May 2012. d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (3 February 2006 – 21 November 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-2CS, ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The Charge Sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c. Three Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY)” to “Absent Without Leave (AWOL),” effective date 20 March 2011; From “AWOL” to “Dropped From Rolls (DFR),” effective date 7 July 2011; and From “DFR,” to “Attached/PDY,” effective date 29 February 2012. The applicant’s letter to 1SG, dated 12 March 2012, reflects the applicant indicated the reason for going AWOL was while the applicant was awaiting separation because of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the applicant was jumped by six Soldiers. The applicant’s SSG described the details of the attack to the applicant in detail, made several perverse and demoralizing statements, and indicated the applicant deserved it. The applicant was terrified for the applicant’s life. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 11 months, 12 days (AWOL, 20 March 2011 – 29 February 2012) / Apprehended by Civil Authorities j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; and electronic mail message. 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.) (7) 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 a 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 record of service, 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. The applicant contends being assaulted and a fearing for one’s life affected behavior which led to the discharge. The applicant’s AMHRR contains a statement from the applicant indicating the applicant went AWOL because of an assault and the applicant’s life was threatened and the applicant called the military police. There is no evidence of a military police report in the AMHRR documenting the incident. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The 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 found that the applicant has the following potentially mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, Bipolar Disorder, Cyclothymic Disorder, and Depression. Additionally, the applicant asserts PTSD, which may be sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a condition that could mitigate or excuse the discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant was diagnosed in service with multiple BH conditions to include an Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, Bipolar Disorder, Cyclothymic Disorder, and Depression. The applicant also self-asserts having PTSD during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant was diagnosed in service with multiple BH conditions to include an Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, Bipolar Disorder, Cyclothymic Disorder, and Depression. The applicant also self-asserts having PTSD during military service, which should be considered by the Board. Given the nexus between PTSD and avoidance, PTSD can contribute to AWOL. However, there is no medical evidence to support applicant’s self-assertion of PTSD since it was not diagnosed in service, despite being consistently seen by a provider from March 2007 to January 2008 prior to the AWOL, receiving a safety evaluation after going AWOL for a week in April 2008 and being seen by Behavioral Health after returning from the AWOL that lead to separation and the VA has not diagnosed or service connected applicant with any BH conditions in the 10 years since the discharge. Bipolar Disorder is also a potentially mitigating condition for AWOL due to impulsivity and impaired judgment associated with an acute manic episode, but there is no evidence that applicant was manic at the time applicant went AWOL and no evidence in the medical record that any of applicant’s BH conditions contributed to the AWOL. On the contrary, applicant told the BH provider that applicant went AWOL due to a conflict with the PLT SGT. (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 Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, Bipolar Disorder, Cyclothymic Disorder, Depression and applicant asserted PTSD outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – AWOL – for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): The applicant contends being assaulted and a fear of life affected behavior which led to the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined there is insufficient evidence to support the applicant had PTSD or to support the contention of being threatened by his NCO, thus, the applicant’s BH conditions do not mitigate or excuse the applicant’s misconduct of AWOL. 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 Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, potential Bipolar Disorder, Cyclothymic Disorder, Depression and self-asserted PTSD did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of AWOL. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. ? 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL – Absent Without Leave AMHRR – Army Military Human Resource Record BCD – Bad Conduct Discharge BH – Behavioral Health CG – Company Grade Article 15 CID – Criminal Investigation Division ELS – Entry Level Status FG – Field Grade Article 15 GD – General Discharge HS – High School HD – Honorable Discharge IADT – Initial Active Duty Training MP – Military Police MST – Military Sexual Trauma N/A – Not applicable NCO – Noncommissioned Officer NIF – Not in File NOS – Not Otherwise Specified OAD – Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) – Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF – Official Military Personnel File PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE – Re-entry SCM – Summary Court Martial SPCM – Special Court Martial SPD – Separation Program Designator TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury UNC – Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC – Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA – Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210002306 1