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, being diagnosed with Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) along with a myriad of other problems because of three combat deployments. The applicant contends psychiatrists stated the behavioral health issues which led to the discharge were from psychological medical issues. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 14 March 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board’s decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 29 January 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date and Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): On 10 January 2014, the applicant was charged with: Charge I: Violating Article 86, UCMJ, Specifications 1, 2, and 3: On or about 18 July, 23 August, and 4 October 2012, for absent without leave (AWOL). Charge II: Violating Article 134, UCMJ, Specification: On 4 October 2012, for breaking restriction. Charge III: Violating Article 91, UCMJ: Specification: On or about 2 August 2012, for disrespectful in language toward a superior non-commissioned officer. (2) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (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: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 17 October 2006 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 30 / two-years college / 125 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-7 / 13F40, Fire Support Specialist / 18 years, 6 months, 18 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 8 March 1995 – 28 June 1998 / HD USARCG, 29 June 1998 – 26 July 1998 / NA RA, 27 July 1998 – 27 August 2001 / HD ARNG, 28 August 2001 – 5 November 2001 / HD RA, 6 November 2001 – 25 November 2003 / HD RA, 26 November 2003 – 2 December 2004 / HD RA, 3 December 2004 – 16 October 2006 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Afghanistan (1 December 2003 – 28 May 2004); Iraq (29 August 2004 – 30 June 2005; 17 August 2006 – 8 November 2007) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, JSCOM, ARCOM-3, AAM-3, MUC, ASUA, AGCM- 5, NDSM-2, ICM-CS, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, KDSM-2, ICM-CS, NCOPDR-3, ASR, OSR-4 g. Performance Ratings: 1 April 2006 – 31 March 2007 / Among The Best 1 April 2007 – 29 February 2008 / Among The Best 1 March 2008 – 28 February 2009 / Fully Capable 1 March 2009 – 9 December 2011 / Among The Best 9 December 2012 – 8 December 2012 / Marginal 9 December 2012 – 8 December 2013 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c. Seven Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY),” to “Failure to Report (FTR),” effective 28 February 2012; From “FTR” to “Absent Without Leave (AWOL),” effective 29 February 2012; From “AWOL,” to “Confined by Military Authorities (CMA),” effective 3 March 2012; From “PDY,” to “AWOL,” effective 18 July 2012; From “AWOL,” to “PDY,” effective 23 July 2012; From “PDY,” to “AWOL” effective 23 August 2012; From “DFR,” to “Hospital (HOS),” effective 24 August 2012; From “PDY,” to “DFR,” effective 4 October 2012; From “DFR,” to “Confined by Civil Authorities (CCA),” effective 4 October 2012. Military Police Report, dated 4 November 2013, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: desertion (on post). Report of Result of Trial reflects the applicant was tried in a Summary Court-Martial on 19 April 2012. The applicant was charged with five specifications. The summary of offenses, pleas, and findings: Violation of Article 86, AWOL: On 28 February 2012; guilty, inconsistent with the plea. Sentence: Forfeiture $545 pay, and restriction for two months. Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers, dated 4 November 2013, reflects the investigating officer found: The allegation of being AWOL from 4 October, 23 August, 18 July, and 28 February 2012; braking restriction; and disrespecting non- commissioned officer in the notification of the proposed separation, is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The findings do warrant separation with respect the applicant. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 4 months, 5 days: AWOL, 29 February 2012 – 7 March 2012 / Apprehended by CMA AWOL, 18 July 2012 – 22 July 2012 / Apprehended by CMA AWOL, 12 October 2012 – 26 November 2012 / Apprehended by CMA AWOL, 4 November 2013 – 8 January 2014 / Apprehended by CMA j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Admission Notes- Newark, dated 28 January 2008, reflects the applicant was showing the following medical issues: PTSD and depression. (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 17 December 2012, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; could appreciate the difference between right and wrong; and met medical retention requirements. The applicant had been screened for PTSD and mTBI with negative results. The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. The command was advised to consider the influence of these conditions. The applicant was diagnosed with: Major Depression Recurrent Moderate on Axis. Report of Medical History, dated 11 January 2013, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Anxiety and Suicidal ideations (SI). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; medical records. 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) 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. 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: 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 Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR), the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR) includes partial facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. The applicant’s AMHRR does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was not authenticated by the applicant’s electronic signature. The applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, by reason of In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). 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 general (under honorable conditions) discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. The applicant contends the discharge was improper because the applicant was suffering from undiagnosed with PTSD along with a myriad of other problems because of three combat deployments. The applicant contends psychiatrists states the behavioral health issues which led to discharge were from psychological medical issues. The applicant provided Admission Notes - Newark, dated 28 January 2008, reflects the applicant was showing the following medical issues: PTSD and depression. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent an MSE, dated 17 December 2012, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The applicant was diagnosed with: Major Depression, Recurrent Moderate on Axis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant’s 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/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses/experiences: PTSD, Major Depression, and Borderline Personality Disorder. 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 compelling evidence of multiple diagnoses associated with impairment while on Active Duty. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that he appreciates the complex nature of this case given applicant’s multiple deployments, multiple potentially mitigating BH diagnoses, and a long history of service. Applicant has multiple active- duty diagnoses to include PTSD, Major Depression, and Borderline Personality Disorder as well as a service connection for PTSD. The nature of applicant’s diagnoses, in particular PTSD and Major Depression, result in partial mitigation of the circumstances leading to discharge. In summary, PTSD is often associated with avoidance behaviors such as AWOL and irritability and disrespect to authority figures, which appears especially relevant given applicant’s history with a reportedly abusive father. However, such conditions do not impair one’s ability to differentiate right from wrong and adhere to the right. Although the review suggests that there are aspects of applicant’s behavioral history that are hearsay (eg, threats against the administrative separation board), there is ample evidence in applicant’s treatment records that applicant knowingly and willfully violated expectations of behavior to include seeing significant other during an active no- contact order and violating restriction by going to Colorado. Applicant’s overall history of domestic incidents is also concerning and are not mitigated by the psychiatric conditions. Applicant’s primary treating psychiatrist during the latter portion of applicants career appeared to go to great lengths to convey that applicant was responsible for behavior while also presenting case to a fitness for duty panel to ensure appropriate disposition given case’s complex nature. After careful consideration of all available data, it is the BH advisor’s opinion that the mitigation offered by applicant’s psychiatric condition does not outweigh the nature of the offenses and disciplinary history, and a GD appears proper and equitable. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A b. Response to Contention(s): The applicant contends the discharge was improper because the applicant was suffering from undiagnosed PTSD along with a myriad of other problems because of three combat deployments. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant’s willingness to serve and considered this contention during board proceedings along with the totality of the applicant’s service record. Ultimately, the Board determined that PTSD, Major Depression, and Borderline Personality Disorder do not mitigate breaking restriction from Post and going to Colorado via airplane, violating a no contact order and seeing significant other as well as several domestic abuse incidents documented in the medical files. 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 PTSD, Major Depression, and Borderline Personality Disorder did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of breaking restriction from Post and going to Colorado via airplane, violating a no contact order and seeing significant other as well as several domestic abuse incidents. 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 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 AR20210002438 1