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, the applicant believes the discharge was discriminatory and influenced by the continuous effort to magnify any conduct which would support a negative image of the applicant’s character based on the applicant’s stature and demeanor. The applicant plans to strive to be a model citizen and veteran. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 26 August 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 23 December 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 28 November 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 21 September 2011, the applicant disobeyed a senior NCO; between on or about 17 July 2011 and on or about 3 August 2011, the applicant was AWOL; and, between on or about 17 July 2011 and on or about 3 August 2011, the applicant altered an official document. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 29 November 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 7 December 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 November 2008 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / High School Graduate / 101 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 91G10, Fire Control Repairer / 3 years, 20 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Afghanistan (29 June 2010 – 18 May 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, MUC, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY)” to “Absent Without Leave (AWOL),” effective 17 July 2011; From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective 3 August 2011 FG Article 15, dated 20 September 2011, being absent from the unit on or about 17 July 2011 until 3 August 2011; and, on or about 17 July 2011 and on or about 3 August 2011, with intent to defraud, falsely alter a certain writing in a DA Form 31. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $733 pay per month for two months (suspended); and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 17 days (AWOL, 17 July 2011 – 2 August 2011) / NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 29 September 2011, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Decrease memory head injury reported, trouble sleeping no care sought, seeing mental health for depression. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 24 October 2011, 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 Depressed Mood. It was noted the Soldier is psychiatrically cleared to undergo administrative separation as deemed appropriate by command, for misconduct. The applicant has been seen previously in Behavioral Health clinic for complaints related to low mood arising from poor adjustment to the military, and the consequences of behaviors which have gotten the applicant not trouble. The applicant is not suicidal or homicidal, not considered a danger to oneself or others. The applicant is unlikely to be ale to amend the behaviors to satisfactorily conform to military standards of behavior. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant plans to strive to be a model citizen and veteran. 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 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 the discharge was discriminatory and influenced by the continuous effort to magnify any conduct which would support a negative image of the applicant’s character based on the applicant’s stature and demeanor. There is no evidence in the Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) the applicant sought assistance or reported the harassment. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention.The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant plans to strive to be a model citizen and veteran. 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 the following diagnoses or experiences which can, under certain circumstances, potentially mitigate or excuse misconduct leading to separation: Unspecified Depressive Disorder, Adjustment Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board’s Medical Advisor found that the applicant’s Unspecified Depressive Disorder and Adjustment Disorder existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration, the Board’s Medical Advisor determined that the applicant’s Unspecified Depressive Disorder and Adjustment Disorder do not mitigate the applicant’s AWOL or disobedience offense as there is no nexus between Depressive Disorder and Adjustment Disorder and the applicant’s AWOL and disobedience offenses. The Board Medical Advisor determined that the applicant’s asserted PTSD could mitigate the applicant’s AWOL and disobedience offense as self-medication and avoidance is part of the sequela of symptoms associated with PTSD but the Board Medical Advisor was unable to provide a medical opine on whether the applicant’s PTSD actually mitigates the applicant’s misconduct because the applicant Report of Medical History dated 29 September 2011 reflects the applicant asserted being diagnosed with PTSD prior to the applicant’s deployment to Iraq in 2010 but the applicant’s medical records do not reflect a PTSD diagnosis, the applicant did not provide evidence that the VA diagnosed or service-connected the applicant with PTSD, and the applicant did not provide a PTSD diagnosis from a civilian provider. Without additional medical evidence, the Board Medical Advisor determined the applicant’s asserted PTSD does not mitigate the applicant’s AWOL or disobedience offenses. Finally, the Board Medical Advisor determined that the applicant’s Unspecified Depressive Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, and asserted PTSD does not mitigate the applicant’s offense of altering an official document as there is no natural sequela between these behavioral health conditions and altering an official document. (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 Unspecified Depressive Disorder and Adjustment Disorder outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – misconduct of disobedience, AWOL, and altering an official document. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the discharge was discriminatory and influenced by the continuous effort to magnify any conduct which would support a negative image of the applicant’s character based on the applicant’s stature and demeanor. The Board considered this contention, but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with unfair treatment from the chain of command, and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. The Board concluded that the applicant’s disobedience, AWOL, and altering an official document, is not an acceptable response to dealing with unfair treatment from command, thus the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (2) The applicant plans to strive to be a model citizen and veteran. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. 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. In this case, the Board determined that the applicant’s plan to strive to be a model citizen does not outweigh the applicant’s basis of separation - misconduct of disobedience, AWOL, and altering an official document. d. 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. e. 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 Unspecified Depressive Disorder and Adjustment Disorder did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of misconduct of disobedience, AWOL, and altering an official document. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL – Absent Without Leave AMHRR – Army Military Human Resource Record BCD – Bad Conduct Discharge BH – Behavioral Health CG – Company Grade Article 15 CID – Criminal Investigation Division ELS – Entry Level Status FG – Field Grade Article 15 GD – General Discharge HS – High School HD – Honorable Discharge IADT – Initial Active Duty Training MP – Military Police MST – Military Sexual Trauma N/A – Not applicable NCO – Noncommissioned Officer NIF – Not in File NOS – Not Otherwise Specified OAD – Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) – Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF – Official Military Personnel File PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE – Re-entry SCM – Summary Court Martial SPCM – Special Court Martial SPD – Separation Program Designator TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury UNC – Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC – Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA – Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210002551 1