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 and a change to the narrative reason. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, understanding the mistakes made are both morally and socially unforgiving and very wrong. Although the events were isolated, the applicant served the country honorably with two combat tours. Prior to the mistakes, the applicant never dishonored or disgraced the Army. The requested upgrade and change to the narrative reason would allow the applicant access to better opportunities for employment and enable the applicant to proudly view the DD Form 214. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 3 November 2022, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI and PTSD diagnoses). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason/SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 19 August 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 27 July 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 23 January 2016, the applicant failed to obey a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer. On 11 January 2016, the applicant made a false official statement to Sergeant First Class B. On 23 January 2016, the applicant made a false official statement to Sergeant First Class B. On 22 January 2016, the applicant was absent without leave and remained absent from the unit until 25 January 2016. On 21 March 2016, the applicant was absent without leave and remained absent from the unit until 25 March 2016. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 27 July 2016, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 27 July 2016, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 4 August 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 17 November 2014 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 28 / HS Graduate / 106 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 11B20, Infantryman / 6 years, 10 months, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 14 October 2009 - 16 November 2014 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, Turkey, SWA / Afghanistan (30 August 2010 - 1 April 2011; 9 July 2013 - 24 December 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-2, ARCOM, AAM-2, NDSM, NATOMDL, AGCM-2, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-3, CIB g. Performance Ratings: 15 November 2014 - 14 November 2015 / Fully Capable 15 November 2015 - 22 April 2016 / Not Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 18 March 2016, on or about 22 January 2016 without authority went AWOL until on or about 25 January 2016. On or about 23 January 2016, disobeyed a lawful order. On or about 11 and 23 January 2016 make a false statement to SFC B. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4; forfeiture of $1,241 pay per month for two months (suspended); extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Memorandum for Commander, dated 29 January 2016, reflects the facts and finding for the Commander's investigation regarding the alleged adulterous relationship between the applicant and M. According to the evidence presented, the investigating officer believes the applicant engaged in a physical and emotional relationship with M., the investigating officer cannot prove this relationship was sexual in nature. The investigating officer also concluded this is unbecoming of a uniformed service member and is prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the armed forces. FG Article 15, dated 19 April 2016, on or about 21 March 2016 without authority went AWOL until on or about 25 March 2016. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $783 pay per month for two months; extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 21 March 2016 and From "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)" to "Present for Duty (PDY)"," effective 25 March 2016. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL for four days, 21 March 2016 to 25 March 2016. This period is not annotated on the DD Form 214 block 29. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 20 April 2016, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Service member is seeing PCM and BH. Report of Medical Examination, dated 20 April 2016, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Adjustment Disorder with depressive symptoms and continue with care of PCM and Behavioral Health. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated10 May 2016, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment Disorder with depression by Hx. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD From 293; three letters of support; Permanent order 351-002; DA Form 1059; three NCOERS. 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 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 14-12b, addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 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 "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12b, pattern of misconduct. 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-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waivable. 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 the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Pattern of Misconduct," and the separation code is "JKA." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends good service, including two combat tours. The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant's good conduct while 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: PTSD, Adjustment Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found applicant was diagnosed in service with an Adjustment Disorder and is diagnosed and service connected by the VA for PTSD. Service connection establishes that applicant's PTSD also 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 with applicant's PTSD and the AWOLs, which should be considered by the Board. However, the medical record also documents that applicant went AWOL to see applicant's girlfriend. Failing to obey a lawful order and making false official statements are not mitigated by applicant's BH conditions since they do not interfere with the 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 concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant's PTSD and Adjustment Disorder outweighed the basis for applicant's separation - AWOL, failure to obey a lawful order, and making false official statements. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The Board considered the contention and determined the narrative reason for the discharge does not warrant a change. The available evidence did not support a conclusion that applicant's narrative reason was inequitable or improper. (2) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention and the applicant's assertion of an isolated incident, however the Board determined that there is no evidence and the applicant did not provide supporting documentation to provide merit to the claim. Ultimately, the Board determined an upgrade to the characterization of service was warranted based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, PTSD and Adjustment Disorder diagnoses. (3) The applicant contends good service, including two combat tour. 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. c. The majority of the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (OBHI and PTSD diagnoses). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason/SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address further 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 to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's PTSD partially mitigated the applicant's misconduct of AWOL and the Board determined the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service outweighed the applicant's failure to obey a lawful order, and making false official statements. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The Board voted not to change the RE code due to applicant's service limiting military related PTSD. The current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge BH - Behavioral Health CG - Company Grade Article 15 CID - Criminal Investigation Division ELS - Entry Level Status FG - Field Grade Article 15 GD - General Discharge HS - High School HD - Honorable Discharge IADT - Initial Active Duty Training MP - Military Police MST - Military Sexual Trauma N/A - Not applicable NCO - Noncommissioned Officer NIF - Not in File NOS - Not Otherwise Specified OAD - Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) - Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF - Official Military Personnel File PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE - Re-entry SCM - Summary Court Martial SPCM - Special Court Martial SPD - Separation Program Designator TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA - Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210002458 1