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 bad conduct discharge. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant should be considered for the upgrade, because it was the applicant’s first time ever in trouble. The applicant accepts full responsibility for the applicant’s actions. The applicant was young and made a stupid mistake by becoming high before leaving for Afghanistan. The only reason the applicant went absent without leave was to escape justice, but the applicant realized it made the situation worse. The applicant was upset because the applicant saw a career go out the window. The applicant just signed up for selection with Special Forces and was planning a career in the Army. The applicant would like to know if the unit had a drug problem. The unit had a group of noncommissioned officers (NCO) fail the drug screens. The NCOs were not punished as harshly as the applicant was. The applicant believes in being punished, but the punishment was too harsh. The applicant suffers from service-connected injuries, to include PTSD. The applicant requests the Board consider the applicant’s record was flawless before the misconduct. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 26 July 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: Court-Martial, Other / AR 635-200, Chapter 3 / JJD / RE-4 / Bad Conduct b. Date of Discharge: 11 July 2008 c. Separation Facts: (1) Pursuant to Special Court-Martial Empowered to Adjudge a Bad-Conduct Discharge: As announced by Special Court-Martial Order Number 7, dated 26 April 2007, on 15 February 2007, the applicant was found guilty of the following: Charge I, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ, The Specification: Being AWOL from 18 November 2005 to 16 September 2006. Plea: Guilty. Charge II, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ, The Specification: Did, between 22 and 27 September 2005, wrongfully use Methamphetamines. Plea: Guilty. The Additional Charge, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ, The Specification: Did between 19 and 24 October 2006, wrongfully use Methamphetamines. Plea: Guilty. (2) Adjudged Sentence: To be confined for 60 days and to be discharged from the service with a bad conduct discharge. (3) Date / Sentence Approved: 26 April 2007 / the sentence was approved and, except for the part of the sentence extending to a bad conduct discharge, would be executed. (4) Appellate Reviews: The record of trial was forwarded to The Judge Advocate General of The Army for review by the Court of Military Review. The United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the approved findings of guilty and the sentence. (5) Date Sentence of BCD Ordered Executed: 31 January 2008 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 13 January 2005 / 3 years / The AMHRR is void of any enlistment contract retaining the applicant on active duty after the most recent enlistment period. The DD Form 214 reflects the applicant was on excess leave for 464 days: 5 April 2007 – 11 July 2008. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 99 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92F10, H7 Petroleum Supply Specialist / 3 years, 6 months, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 30 December 2003 – 12 January 2005 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Special Court-Martial Order as described in previous paragraph 3c. Five Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY)” to “Absent Without Leave (AWOL),” effective date 15 November 2005; From “AWOL” to “Dropped From Rolls (DFR),” effective date 18 December 2005; From “DFR,” to “PDY,” effective date 16 September 2006; From “PDY” to “Confined by Military Authorities (CMA)” effective date 15 February 2007; and From “CMA” to “PDY,” effective date 5 April 2007. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 11 months, 22 days: AWOL, 15 November 2005 – 15 September 2006 / NIF CMA, 15 February 2007 – 4 April 2007 / Released from Confinement j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Methamphetamine Dependance (AHLTA) and JLV Anxiety Disorder and Bipolar Disorder 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293. 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), dated 25 September 2019, 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. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for separation specifically allows such characterization. (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) Paragraph 3-11 states a Soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial. The appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. 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 “JJD” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 3, Court-Martial (other). 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 service record indicates the applicant was adjudged guilty by a special court-martial and the sentence was approved by the convening authority. Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process. In accordance with DoDD 1325.04 and AR 15-180 The Board is empowered to change the discharge only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. The applicant contends suffering from service-connected injuries and PTSD. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis or injuries. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention that the discharge resulted from any medical condition. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends this was the applicant’s first time being in trouble. The AMHRR indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses. Army Regulation 635-200, 3-5c, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends other Soldiers with similar offenses were not punished as harshly as the applicant. Applicable regulations state each case must be decided on an individual basis, considering the unique facts and circumstances of the particular case. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant’s behavior at the time of the discharge. The AMHRR shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. The applicant contends good service. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. 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 DoD and VA medical records and found that the applicant’s record indicates a diagnosis of Anxiety Disorder and Bipolar Disorder. Additionally, the applicant asserts PTSD, which also 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 that the applicant’s self-asserted PTSD during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant does not have any mitigating BH diagnosis. There is no evidence in any medical record or provided by the applicant to support an assertion of PTSD; however if the board’s accepts the applicant’s contention PTSD could be mitigating for the applicant’s methamphetamine use; however it would not be mitigation for the AWOL as the AWOL appears to be in response to facing disciplinary action for the methamphetamine use. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. The board liberally considered that the applicant’s self-asserted PTSD or other condition that alone can be evidence of the existence of a mitigating condition (IAW the Kurta memo); however, the board determined the applicant’s contention alone was not sufficient credible evidence to outweigh the discharge for because: The applicant had a proper Medical Separation Evaluation; the provider notes in the applicant’s medical records did not support the existence of a mitigating PTSD condition; The applicant’s available record of service; misconduct; and circumstances surrounding the discharge. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends suffering from service-connected injuries and PTSD. The Board considered this contention and the applicant’s assertion of PTSD, however the Board determined that there is no evidence of said diagnoses in official or medical records, and the applicant did not provide supporting documentation by a qualified medical professional to provide merit to the claim. Ultimately, the Board determined that the assertion alone did not outweigh the basis of separation due to the severity of the offenses. (2) The applicant contends this was the applicant’s first time being in trouble. The Board determined this contention had no merit, as the applicant got caught doing meth, went AWOL for a year to avoid deployment and justice, and got caught doing meth again a month after being returned to military control. (3) The applicant contends other Soldiers with similar offenses were not punished as harshly as the applicant. The Board considered this contention non-persuasive during its deliberations. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis, and it was determined this discharge was proper and equitable. In response to the request if there was a drug problem in the unit, this does not fall under the purview of the ADRB as it is not an investigative body. (4) The applicant contends youth and immaturity affected the applicant’s behavior at the time of the discharge. Due to the seriousness of the misconduct including conscious, deliberate decisions the applicant made when presented with challenges, youthful indiscretion does not excuse the misconduct. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. 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 the applicant got caught doing meth, went AWOL for a year to avoid deployment and justice, and got caught doing meth again a month after being returned to military control is more serious than a youthful indiscretion. (5) The applicant contends good service. The Board determined there was very limited service to consider, since the applicant’s first drug offense was 10 months after joining, and the applicant went AWOL for a year after that, then the second drug offense occurred. 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 assertion of PTSD did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of drug abuse and AWOL. 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, and 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 AR20210002696 1