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, there was no malice in what the applicant did as a young person while trying to manage getting the life back on track. The applicant volunteered for active duty shortly after enlisting in the USAR at 17 years of age. Three months after reporting to the first unit, the applicant was deployed to Kuwait and supported an operation in the battle of Karbala. The applicant frequently manned the radios in the combat support hospital where the applicant witnessed the bloody mess left by the doctors. The sight, sounds, and smells of the first deployment never left the applicant. The applicant earned two promotions while deployed. Upon returning and when asked, the applicant agreed to transfer to "13th COSCOM." The spouse did not understand and began to harbor a resentment because of having to deploy again three months after returning from the first deployment. The applicant completed the second deployment, reclassified to the 19D MOS, and was promoted to E-5. The applicant then became involved with Katrina. At that point, when the marriage fell apart, the applicant moved into the barracks. The financial strains leading to a foreclosure proceeding caused the spouse to move with the child to another state. The applicant could no longer ignore the fact the dedication to the Army had been detrimental to the marriage. The applicant wanting to square away the spouse and child, requested for emergency leave which was initially approved, but later denied. Subsequently, a mechanical trouble caused the applicant to miss a 0630 formation, which led to an Article 15 recommendation, but the applicant went AWOL for 28 days. Upon returning, the applicant received an Article 15 punishment for missing the formation and being AWOL for 28 days. The applicant was sitting in the barracks room with three other Soldiers, when SFC M. told the applicant to clear the barracks and go home, and the DD Form 214 would be mailed to the applicant. Six months later, when the applicant inquired about not receiving the DD Form 214, the applicant was informed of being in an AWOL status. The applicant returned to Fort Hood and was confined in a military confinement, and later separated with an UOTH discharge. The applicant has since interviewed for employment but has been unable to receive employment with the law enforcement or the government with the current discharge. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 2 December 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's PTSD outweighing the AWOL basis for separation. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. The Board determined the reentry eligibility (RE) code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. Please see Section 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 (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 29 August 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 9 August 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant was AWOL from 5 October 2006, until 4 June 2007. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 20 August 2007 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 20 August 2007, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: On 22 August 2007, the GCMCA approved the applicant's unconditional waiver of consideration of the case by an administrative separation board. / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 October 2004 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / GED / 109 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 19D10, Calvary Scout / 4 years, 9 months, 27 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 18 October 2001 - 6 November 2001 / NA IADT, 7 November 2001 - 12 April 2002 / UNC USAR, 13 April 2002 - 1 October 2002 / HD RA, 2 October 2002 - 17 October 2004 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (6 January 2004 - 8 December 2004) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, HSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: 1 July 2005 - 14 July 1006 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Ten Developmental Counseling Forms for acts of misconduct. Ten Personnel Action forms reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 23 February 2006; From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 20 March 2006; From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 27 March 2006; From "AWOL" to "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," effective 26 April 2006; From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 21 June 2006; From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 5 October 2006; From "AWOL" to "DFR," effective 6 November 2006; From "DFR" to "PDY," effective 4 June 2007; From "PDY" to "Confined by Military Authorities (CMA)" effective 25 July 2007; and From "CMA" to "PDY," effective 20 August 2007. FG Article 15, dated 10 July 2006, for being AWOL on 23 February 2006 and remaining absent until 20 March 2006; for failing to go to the appointed place of duty at the prescribed time, to wit: 0600 first formation on 24 March 2006; and for being AWOL on 27 March 2006 and remaining absent until 21 June 2006. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4; forfeiture of $967 pay per month for two months (suspended); and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. FG Article 15, dated 23 August 2006, for without authority, leaving the appointed place of duty, to wit: 1800 extra duty, on 16 July 2006. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $636 pay per month for two months (suspended); and extra duty and restriction for 45 days (suspended). Sworn Statement, dated 4 June 2007, rendered by the applicant, indicates while the applicant was in the barracks room with SPC H. and SPC T., SSG M. and SSG K. entered the room and SSG M. told the applicant to go home and the DD Form 214 would be sent in the mail, and after not receiving the DD Form 214 and upon inquiring, the applicant was informed of being in an AWOL status. Thereupon, the applicant returned to the unit. Charge Sheet with a preferred date of 18 June 2007, reflects the applicant was charged with violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, for without authority being absent from the unit on 5 October 2006, and remaining absent until 4 June 2007. An Appendix I (Quantum) with an Offer to Plead Guilty, dated 28 June 2007, reflects the Special Court-Martial Convening Authority on 18 July 2007, accepting the applicant's offer to plead guilty to the charges and its specifications upon the referral of the charges to trial by a Summary Court-Martial. The offer to plead guilty reflects the applicant, as part of the offer, agreed to waive any right to an administrative separation board i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 378 days: AWOL, 23 February 2006 - 19 March 2006 / Returned to Military Control AWOL, 27 March 2006 - 20 June 2006 / Returned to Military Control AWOL, 5 October 2006 - 3 June 2007 / Returned to Military Control AWOL, 25 July 2007 - 18 August 2007 / Returned to Military Control j. Applicant Provided and/or AMHHR Listed PTSD / TBI / Other Behavioral Health Conditions: The applicant's third-party letters rendered by J. P. T., relate to being aware of the applicant "seeking help for both alcohol dependence and PTSD," and SSG (Retired) J. M. W., related the applicant started to "drinking heavily and even [seeking] help for [the] alcohol dependence" and believing the attempts of self-medicating were the result of the PTSD from "previous combat tours." 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; five third-party letters; and Recommendation for Award (ARCOM). 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant's third-party letters rendered by E. A. indicate the applicant having started a business and continued with Soldiering. 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 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. (5) 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. (6) Paragraph 14-12c prescribes a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). 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 record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends having served two deployments back-to-back and earning promotions while deployed. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The applicant contends no malice intended as youth and immaturity affected the applicant's behavior at the time of the discharge. The AMHRR shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately contributed to 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 harassment by a member of the chain of command. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the harassment. The applicant contends the current discharge impedes upon the applicant's attempts for better employment with the law enforcement or government. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. The applicant's third-party letters relate on the applicant having to cope with and seeking help for alcohol dependence and PTSD. The applicant did not submit any evidence of any behavioral health diagnosis, other than the third-party letters, to support the discharge may have resulted from a medical condition. The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's character and performance and recognized the applicant's good conduct after leaving the Army. The applicant's third-party letter reflects the applicant started a business and continued Soldiering. 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 has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Chronic PTSD, Depression. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant's Chronic PTSD and Depression existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that given the nexus between PTSD and avoidance, the applicant's PTSD likely contributed to the AWOL that led to the separation and is therefore, medically mitigated. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. The Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member. As a result, the ADRB applied liberal consideration and found that the applicant's PTSD outweighed the AWOL basis for separation for the aforementioned reason. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends having served two deployments back-to-back and earning promotions while deployed. The Board considered this contention but ultimately did not address it due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD outweighing the AWOL misconduct. (2) The applicant contends no malice intended as youth and immaturity affected the applicant's behavior at the time of the discharge. The Board considered this contention but ultimately did not address it due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD outweighing the AWOL misconduct. (3) The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately contributed to the discharge. The Board considered this contention but ultimately did not address it due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD outweighing the AWOL misconduct. (4) The applicant contends harassment by a member of the chain of command. The Board considered this contention but ultimately did not address it due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD outweighing the misconduct. (5) The applicant contends current discharge impedes upon the applicant's attempts for better employment with the law enforcement or government. The Board considered this contention but does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. (6) The applicant's third-party letters relate the applicant having to cope with and seeking help for alcohol dependence and PTSD. The Board considered this contention but ultimately did not address it due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD outweighing the misconduct. (7) The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's character and performance. The Board considered this contention but ultimately did not address it due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD outweighing the misconduct. (8) The applicant's third-party letter reflects the applicant started a business and continued Soldiering. The Board considered this contention but ultimately did not address it due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's PTSD outweighing the misconduct. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's PTSD outweighing the AWOL basis for separation, thus warranting an upgrade. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's PTSD mitigated the applicant's misconduct of AWOL. Thus the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. (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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a 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 AR20210002375 1