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, a charge should be dismissed when it is not supported by the available evidence or when there are sound reasons it is not appropriate. The elements of Article 85, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Desertion, were not met. On 19 November 2012, the applicant signed out on approved transition leave, which was to expire on 2 December 2012, at which date the applicant was to be medically retired with a 70 percent rating from the Army for combat related post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The applicant properly cleared the installation on 19 November 2012. There was no adverse action imposed and no Flag in place. The applicant received the DD Form 214, retiree’s identification card, and left Fort Sam Houston for the family’s home in Puerto Rico, with a government-issued plane ticket and a valid DA Form 31 (Request and Authority for Leave). There was no investigation underway and no valid basis to hold the applicant. LTC S. did not sign a memorandum of appointment for First Lieutenant (1LT) A. T. until 20 November 2012 and at no time did 1LT A. T. ever attempt to contact the applicant for questioning. This was confirmed by B. B., Retired LTC and civilian legal assistance attorney at Fort Sam Houston. This was brought to the attention of CPT C. W., trial counsel and legal advisor to the 32nd Medical Brigade. CPT P. did not request revocation of the applicant’s retirement orders until 27 November 2012. On 28 November 2012, the applicant’s DD Form 214 was voided and retirement orders were revoked. The applicant contacted First Sergeant G. B. and the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) agent regarding the AWOL charge and was surprised by the news the command believed the applicant was AWOL. During the Article 32b Investigation, Specialist S., testified the CID agent told the applicant, the applicant was not in any trouble for going AWOL and needed to go to the CID office where the applicant was located and make a statement to clear up the mess. The applicant surrendered to military authorities on 6 May 2013, even though there was no legal reason which required the applicant to do so. On 19 November 2012, the applicant relied on B. B.’s reading of law and Army Regulation and even if a valid claim for desertion could be made, which it could not, the applicant would have a valid mistake of fact defense. On 19 November 2012, B. B., an officer of the law, conveyed to the applicant the unit did not have a legal basis to keep the applicant at Fort Sam Houston, and the applicant relied upon the legal guidance. LTC L. C., the Article 32 Investigation Officer, conducted a fair and thorough investigation. LTC C. did not believe there was sufficient evidence to charge the applicant with Charge III, Specifications 5 and 6 and Charge IV, Specification 1. An Article 32 Investigation allows legal counsel to gauge the strengths and weaknesses of a case. Since an Article 32 Officer does not have legal training, knowledge, or background, the officer is representative of someone who would sit on a military panel and ultimately hear much of the same evidence and testimony. An unreasonable multiplication of charges was preferred and referred against the applicant. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 9 November 2022, 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: 16 August 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date and Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): On 16 May and 13 June 2013, the applicant was charged with: Charge I: Violating Article 120, UCMJ. The Charge and Specifications 1 and 2 were dismissed. Charge II: Violating Article 85, UCMJ, The Specification: On 20 November 2012, without authority and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently, was absent from the unit and did remain absent in desertion until apprehended on 3 May 2013. Charge III: Violating Article 92, UCMJ: Specifications 1 and 2 were dismissed. Specifications 3 and 4: Between 5 October and 7 October 2012, fail to obey of a lawful order issued by Colonel (COL) W. L., by engaging in prohibited associations with Soldiers not in the similar training status, Private First Class (PFC) W. M. and PFC K. Y., initial entry trainees, which association included socializing at off-post establishments, consuming alcoholic beverages, and transporting PFC M. to the applicant’s off-post apartment in the applicant’s privately owned vehicle. Specification 5: Between 1 and 25 October, fail to obey a lawful order issued by COL W. L., by engaging in prohibited associations with Specialist J. S., PFC L., and PFC D., initial entry training Soldiers, not in a similar training status, which association including socializing at off-post establishments and consuming alcoholic beverages. Specification 6: Between 1 August and 30 October 2012, fail to obey a lawful order issued by Lieutenant Colonel E. S. by assigning corrective training tasks to initial entry trainees while the applicant was a prior service Soldier. Specification 7 was dismissed. Specification 8: On 7 October 2012, fail to obey a lawful order issued by LTC E. S. by taking PFC W. M. and PFC K. Y., initial entry trainees, to the applicant’s personal off-post residence. Specification 9: Between 1 August and 19 November 2012, fail to obey a lawful order issued by Captain W. P. by using the social networking website Facebook to communicate with PFC M. L. and PFC R. S., junior enlisted advance individual training Soldiers. Charge IV, Violating Article 134, UCMJ: Specification 1: On divers occasions between 1 and 25 October 2012, as a minor under the age of 21 years, wrongfully purchase and make available alcoholic beverages to PFC D., a minor under the age of 21 years, which conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces. Specification 2: On 7 October 2012, the applicant, a married person, wrongfully had sexual intercourse with PFC W. M., a married person not the spouse, which conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces. Charge V, Violating Article 107, UCMJ, The Specification: On 30 October 2012, with intent to deceive, make to First Sergeant G. B., a false official statement. Additional Charge I, Violating Article 120, UCMJ. The charge and specifications were dismissed. Additional Charge II, Violating Article 91, UCMJ: Specification 1: On 20 November 2012, willfully disobey a lawful order from First Sergeant G. B., a senior noncommissioned officer, to report to the company no later than 0800. Specification 2: On 19 November 2012, willfully fail to obey a lawful order from Sergeant First Class W. C., a senior noncommissioned officer, to stop punishing, disciplining, or assigning corrective training to initial entry trainees. (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: 14 August 2013 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 June 2011 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / HS Graduate / 103 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 92G30, Food Service Specialist / 10 years, 1 month, 28 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 25 September 2002 – 4 July 2007 / HD ADT, 19 August 2003 – 17 January 2004 (Concurrent Service) AD, 21 February 2005 – 15 June 2006 / HD (Concurrent Service) RA, 5 July 2007 – 31 May 2011 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Iraq (21 February 2005 – 16 May 2006; 23 October 2007 – 10 January 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-4CS, ARCOM-3, AAM-3, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-3, AFRMMD, AFRM, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 1 December 2010 – 30 November 2011 / Among the Best 1 December 2011 – 3 May 2012 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge Sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c. Request and Authority for Leave, dated 14 November 2012, reflects the applicant’s transition leave from 19 November to 2 December 2012, was approved by LTC E. S. 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 21 November 2012; From “AWOL” to “Dropped From Rolls (DFR),” effective date 21 December 2012; From “DFR,” to “Confined by Military Authorities (CMA),” effective date 3 May 2012; Orders 321-0111, dated 16 November 2012, reflect the applicant was released from assignment and duty because of physical disability incurred while entitled to basic pay and under conditions which permit the applicant’s placement on the Temporary Disability List, effected date of retirement: 2 December 2012; date placed on retirement list: 3 December 2012; and percentage of disability 70 percent. Orders 333-0139, dated 28 November 2012, reflect Orders 321-0111, dated 16 November 2012 were revoked. Memorandum, dated 20 November 2012, reflects an 1LT A. T., was appointed as an investigating officer in a Commander’s Inquiry regarding allegations against the applicant, a prior service student, for possible fraternization and inappropriate relations with another student. Email communications between B. B. and CPT C. W. dated 17 December 2012, regarding the AWOL, ongoing investigation, and revocation of retirement orders. Summary of Investigative Activity from 25 January 2013 to 3 May 2013, which reflects the applicant was being investigated by CID because of a sexual assault allegation and the summary included a timeline of events to return the applicant to military control. Memorandum in support of Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial dated 7 August 2012 [sic], reflects, the applicant’s defense counsel contended the evidence only supported two specifications of Article 92, violation of a lawful order; one specification of Article 134, adultery; and one specification of Article 107, false official statement. The applicant’s Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 15 August 2013, reflects the applicant was flagged for Adverse Action (AA), effective 21 November 2012. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 8 months, 25 days: AWOL, 21 November 2012 – 3 May 2013 / Apprehended by Military Authorities CMA, 3 May 2013 – 14 August 2013 / Released from Confinement j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings, convened on 1 November 2012, reflect the board found the applicant was physically unfit and recommended a rating of 70 percent for PTSD and the applicant be placed on the temporary disability retirement list, with reexamination during July 2013. Brooke Army Medical Center Mental Health Statement, dated 5 August 2013, which reflects the applicant was followed by the Campus Behavioral Health Service since the applicant self- referred to mental health in June 2012. From the onset it was very clear the applicant was suffering from PTSD. In the opinion of the clinical psychologist and psychiatrist the applicant served in an honorable manner and was definitely affected by the combat experiences. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; DD Form 214; Military Identification Card; Service School Academic Evaluation Reports; enlistment documents; NCO Evaluation Reports; Request for Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial supporting documents; Request and Authority for Leave; retirement orders; Informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings; Installation Clearance Record; memorandum, revoking DD Form 214; Personnel Action forms; Enlisted Record Brief; Mental Health Statement; three character references. 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 waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes. RE-4 applies to a 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 evidence of 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 the charge under Article 85, UCMJ, should have been dismissed because it did not meet the elements; the applicant was following the guidance of a legal officer; and the other charges were multiplicitous. The AMHRR reflects the applicant consulted with military defense counsel and voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. In the request, the applicant acknowledged understanding the elements of the offenses charged and the applicant was guilty of at least one of the charges or of a lesser included offense. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends being retired with a 70 percent rating from the Army for combat related post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and was issued a valid ID Card, orders, and DD Form 214. The AMHRR reflects the applicant underwent a PEB on 1 November 2012, which reflects the board found the applicant was physically unfit for PTSD and recommended a rating of 70 percent and the applicant be placed on the temporary disability retirement list, with reexamination during July 2013. The applicant was issued a retirement ID card, retirement orders, and a DD Form 214, which were all revoked because of pending investigation, which led to court-martial charges being preferred. The applicant contends the discharge should have been for medical retirement. The applicant’s requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within this board’s purview. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. The applicant contends good service, including two combat tours. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant’s good military service in the Army. 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: Combat- related PTSD, Anxiety. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board’s Medical Advisor found that the applicant’s PTSD and Anxiety existed 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 given the nexus between PTSD and avoidance, there may have been some association between the applicant’s PTSD and the AWOL. However, there is no natural sequelae between PTSD or Anxiety and any of the other misconduct that led to applicant’s separation since PTSD and Anxiety do not interfere with one’s ability to distinguish between right and wrong and act in accordance with the right. (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 though the applicant’s PTSD mitigates the AWOL misconduct, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD or Anxiety outweighed the remaining unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – failure to obey lawful orders, adultery, wrongfully purchase alcohol while underage, false official statement, and improper relationships with trainees – for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the charge under Article 85, UCMJ, should have been dismissed because it did not meet the elements and the applicant was following the guidance of a legal officer. The Board considered this contention and noted that the AMHRR reflects the applicant consulted with military defense counsel and voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. In the request, the applicant acknowledged understanding the elements of the offenses charged. The Board further noted that the applicant was ordered to report to the applicant’s unit pending investigation for fraternization, adultery, and inappropriate relationships with trainees and failed to report thus being marked AWOL. The Board found the applicant’s contention unpersuasive during deliberations due to the foregoing being found in the applicant’s AMHRR and determined the discharge was proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends being retired with a 70 percent rating from the Army for combat related post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and was issued a valid ID Card, orders, and DD Form 214. The ADRB is not bound by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decisions. There is no law or regulation which requires that an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the Board determination that there was a condition or experience that existed during the applicant’s time in service. The Board must also articulate the nexus between that condition or experience and the basis for separation. Then, the Board must determine that the condition or experience outweighed the basis for separation. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former service member is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the ARBA when determining a member’s discharge characterization. In this case, the Board considered this contention and determined that though the applicant’s PTSD mitigates the AWOL misconduct, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD outweighed the remaining basis for applicant’s separation. The applicant was placed on temporary disability retirement list, with reexamination during July 2013. The applicant was issued a retirement ID card, retirement orders, and a DD Form 214, which were all revoked because of pending investigation, which led to court-martial charges being preferred. (3) The applicant contends the discharge should have been for medical retirement. The Board considered this contention and noted Army Regulation 635-200 which stipulates, in pertinent part, that commanders will not separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. The Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable due to the lack of mitigating factors and the severity of the offenses. (4) The applicant contends good service, including two combat tours. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record, but determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By the aforementioned misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (5) The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. The Board considered the third party statements, and determined the statements do not outweigh the basis for separation due to the severity of the offenses. 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 and though the applicant’s PTSD mitigates the AWOL misconduct, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD or Anxiety outweighed the remaining unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – failure to obey lawful orders, adultery, wrongful purchase of alcohol while underage, false official statement, and improper relationships with trainees. 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 and the applicant’s BH conditions are service limiting. ? 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 AR20210002389 1