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 was absent without leave for almost three months. The applicant was in a state of depression and had major financial setbacks due to the spouse at the time cheating and leaving the applicant. The spouse left Kanas and went back home to Florida to wait for an ex to get out of prison. The spouse called the applicant's commander and first sergeant, constantly demanding money from the applicant. They had been married for a week, and the spouse knew they could receive money because of a child, which later turned out not to be the applicant's. The applicant had a house they had to pay for with the command making the applicant pay to the spouse, and the bills were piling up. Not having enough income to pay for everything, the commander directed the applicant to move into the single Soldier barracks. The applicant slowly started losing everything. The applicant filed for help with financial assistance to help pay the bills. Shortly after receiving the funds, the bills were too much, and it was not enough to cover them. The property manager advised the applicant; that the applicant could break the lease if the applicant had a written reason from the commander directed the applicant to move back into the barracks. The commander did not approve of writing a letter and simply stated because the commander had approved the funds from financial assistance, the applicant needed to pay the past bills and continue paying the lease. Had the commander written the letter, it would have prevented the judgments filed against the applicant. The applicant was also disabled from getting hurt while in the field. The peer pressure and hazing from fellow Soldiers and senior NCOs stacked up in the applicant's mind. They would talk about the spouse cheating and make fun of the situation. The applicant was scheduled to have surgery on the shoulder in June 2009 and was granted 30 days of convalescence leave. The applicant saw this as a time to take a break from everything, relax, get better, and return to a fresh start. While at home, the applicant rested for the first week and a half. Then began helping the stepparent at work. The stepparent had a plumbing company. Being depressed, the applicant saw an opportunity to get away from all the issues and not deal with the stress anymore. The applicant did not realize the severity of the actions and the repercussions. The applicant had reached out to the chain of command and asked for help with these issues. Instead of helping, they sent the applicant to mental health to talk to someone about it because the applicant was depressed; this did not help; it made things worse. The applicant did not come back after the leave was over because the applicant feared not having control of their own life. The applicant believes they deserve a better discharge because the applicant was a good Soldier and was never given a chance to make things right with the Army. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 23 February 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's severe family matters, length and quality of service, to include overseas service, and the applicant's prior period of honorable service. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. The Board determined the reentry eligibility (RE) code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. Please see Section 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 3 November 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 14 October 2009 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: From 6 June 2009 to 9 September 2009, the applicant was wrongfully absent without leave (AWOL). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 15 October 2009 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 19 October 2009 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 11 July 2008 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 91 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 31E10, Corrections Specialist; 13P10, Multiple Launch Rocket System / Fire Direction Specialist / 4 years, 15 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 19 October 2005 - 10 July 2008 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR, MOVSM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Three Personnel Action Forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 6 June 2009; From "AWOL" to "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," effective 7 July 2009; and, From "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," to "Present for Duty (PDY)," effective 9 September 2009. Mental Status Report, dated 25 September 2009, reflects the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the commander. The applicant was or is responsible for their actions and has the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings. Commander's Report, dated 15 October 2009, reflects the applicant received a Field Grade Article 15 imposed on 13 October 2009 for Article 86, absent without leave. Punishment was Reduction to Private (E-1); Forfeiture of $699 pay per month for two months; Extra duty for 45 days; Restriction for 30 days; and an Oral Reprimand. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of VA Rating Decision, dated 9 June 2017, which reflects the applicant was granted 20 percent disability for labral tear s/p arthroscopic repair with a/c joint dislocation (claimed as shoulder condition right (related to PTSD-Non-Combat) (also claimed as musculoskeletal-shoulder (secondary to shoulder condition, right.) 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; two third-party letters; DA Form 638; DD Form 214; ERB; award certificate; VA rating decision letter. 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 14-12c prescribes a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes, provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers' Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for 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 changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is "JKQ." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be 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 good service. The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. There is no evidence in the Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) the applicant ever sought assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends being in a state of depression and having a financial setback. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status report on 25 September 2009, which indicates the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the commander. The applicant was or is responsible for their actions and has the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings. The applicant provided a copy of VA Rating Decision, dated 9 June 2017, which reflects the applicant was granted 20 percent disability for labral tear s/p arthroscopic repair with a/c joint dislocation (claimed as shoulder condition right (related to PTSD-Non-Combat) (also claimed as musculoskeletal-shoulder (secondary to shoulder condition, right). The mental status report was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends harassment and discrimination by members of the chain of command. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the harassment. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant's good conduct while serving 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 found that the applicant has the following potentially mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Adjustment Disorder, Major Depression, Anxiety. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant was diagnosed in service with an Adjustment Disorder and Major Depression. Applicant is also diagnosed, and service connected by the VA for Anxiety. Service connection establishes that applicant's Anxiety existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant was diagnosed in service with an Adjustment Disorder and Major Depression. Applicant is also diagnosed and service connected by the VA for Anxiety. While applicant has potentially mitigating BH conditions, there is no evidence to support that the BH conditions contributed to applicant's AWOL and there is no natural sequela between going AWOL and any of applicant's conditions. Conversely, the medical record clearly indicates that applicant went AWOL due to a desire to be with family and no longer be in the Army. (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 the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant's Adjustment Disorder, Major Depression, and Anxiety outweighed the basis for applicant's separation - AWOL - for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention and determined a change to the narrative reason for discharge is appropriate based on applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat, and applicant's prior period of honorable service. The Board voted to change the narrative reason to Misconduct (Minor Infractions). (2) The applicant contends good service. 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. (3) The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The Board voted after considering the contention and finding no evidence of the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. In this case, the Board determined that family issues are not sufficient to support an upgrade. However, the Board voted to upgrade the discharge based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and applicant's prior period of honorable service outweighing the basis for separation. (4) The applicant contends being in a state of depression and having a financial setback. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant's state of depression and financial setback does not mitigate the applicant's AWOL as the Army affords many avenues to Soldier's including seeking separation for hardship. (5) The applicant contends harassment and discrimination by members of the chain of command. The Board voted after considering the contention and finding no evidence of the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. In this case, the Board determined that there is insufficient evidence to support harassment and discrimination by members of the chain of command outweighed the applicant's discharge. c. the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and applicant's prior period of honorable service. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. The Board determined the reentry eligibility (RE) code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 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 length and quality of service, to include combat service, and applicant's prior period of honorable service outweighing the applicant's misconduct of AWOL. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge BH - Behavioral Health CG - Company Grade Article 15 CID - Criminal Investigation Division ELS - Entry Level Status FG - Field Grade Article 15 GD - General Discharge HS - High School HD - Honorable Discharge IADT - Initial Active Duty Training MP - Military Police MST - Military Sexual Trauma N/A - Not applicable NCO - Noncommissioned Officer NIF - Not in File NOS - Not Otherwise Specified OAD - Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) - Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF - Official Military Personnel File PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE - Re-entry SCM - Summary Court Martial SPCM - Special Court Martial SPD - Separation Program Designator TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA - Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210002687 1