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: 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 enlisted in the Army, was assigned to Fort Sill, and graduated in the top 10 percent of the class. At Fort Bliss, the applicant contends applicant graduated in the top 20 percent of the class in advanced individual training. At the same time, the applicant contends applicant's spouse left with their child, and the applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) to see the child. The applicant contends applicant received a court-martial for the offense and the punishment consisted of restriction to the installation and extra duty for 45 days. During this period, the applicant contends applicant's left wrist was broken, resulting in two surgeries. The applicant contends the unit received orders to discharge the applicant due to the expiration term of service (ETS), but the unit ignored the orders and discharged the applicant for the AWOL offense. The applicant contends applicant was ineligible for VA educational benefits due to the discharge, and an upgrade would allow the applicant to receive the benefits the applicant earned while serving the country. In a records review conducted on 2 June 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 30 November 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 27 October 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant between 26 May 2006 [sic] and 13 August 2010, violated restrictions to the limits of Fort Drum by a person authorized to do so and was wrongfully absent from the unit: E Company, 10th Brigade Support Battalion, located at Fort Drum. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 1 November 2011, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: Undated / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 23 July 2008 / 3 years, 19 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / GED / 115 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 88M10, Motor Transport Operator / 3 years, 1 month, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Sworn Statement, dated 21 April 2010, reflects the applicant admitted to being AWOL because the applicant received a call from the spouse indicating the spouse had divorce papers and the applicant would never see their child again. The applicant returned voluntarily. FG Article 15, dated 14 May 2010, for, without authority, being absent from the unit (from 7 to 19 April 2010). The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $724 pay per month for two months (suspended) and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Record of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 26 May 2010, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment imposed on 14 May 2010, was vacated for: Article 86, failure to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty, to wit: 0700 hours, accountability formation (24 May 2010). Six Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective date 7 April 2010; From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 19 April 2010; From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective date 26 May 2010; From "AWOL" to "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," effective date 26 June 2010; From "DFR," to "PDY," effective date 13 August 2010; and, From "Hospitalized," to "PDY," effective date 21 October 2010. Report of Return of Absentee, dated 11 August 2010, reflects the applicant was apprehended by civil authorities and returned to military control on 11 August 2010. Offer to Plead Guilty, dated 10 May 2011, reflects the applicant agreed to plead guilty to all Charges and Specifications; to be tried by summary court-martial; and to waive the right to administrative separation proceedings commenced within 90 days after court-martial, regardless of the discharge recommended. In exchange the convening authority agreed to refer the case to a summary court-martial. Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial, dated 6 June 2011, reflects the applicant was found guilty of: Charge I, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ, The Specification: AWOL from 26 May to 13 August 2010. Plea: Guilty. Charge II, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ, The Specification: Break restriction on 26 May 2010. The sentence consisted of hard labor without confinement for 45 days and restriction to Fort Drum for 45 days. The applicant's Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 21 October 2010, reflects the applicant's expiration term of service as 19 February 2012. Orders Number 298-1056, dated 25 October 2011, reflect the applicant was to be reassigned to the U.S. Army Transition Point to be released from active duty (REFRAD) on 19 February 2012 and assigned to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (REINF), with a Terminal date of Reserve obligation of 14 July 2016. Orders Number 322-1020, dated 18 November 2011, reflect Orders Number 298-1056, were revoked and the applicant was reassigned to the U.S. Army Transition Point and discharged on 30 November 2011 from the Regular Army. Two Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 2 months, 17 days (AWOL, 26 May 2010 - 13 August 2010) / Apprehended by Civil Authorities There is a discrepancy in the date of return, the Report of Return of Absentee indicates the applicant was returned to military control on 11 August 2010. AWOL 13 days, 7 April 2010 - 19 April 2010. This period is not annotated on the DD Form 214, block 29. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of the Tricare Health Net Federal Service Webpage, dated 28 October 2010, reflecting diagnoses: Depression; Closed Fracture to the left wrist; Adjustment Disorder with disturbance of emotions and conduct; Pain Disorder associated with psychological factors and general medical condition chronic pain syndrome. Report of Medical Examination, dated 11 August 2011, the examining medical physician noted in the significant or disqualifying defects section: Left Wrist Scaphoid, non-union; Depression. Report of Medical History, dated 15 and 24 August 2011, the examining medical physician noted, in part, in the comments section: Left Wrist in May 2010, required surgery; Insomnia; Depression, history of suicidal attempts; Hospitalized for suicide attempt. The applicant believed to be treated unfairly by noncommissioned officers and command; marital strife; lost custody of child; spouse asserts being threatened by Servicemember. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 18 August 2011, reflects the applicant was cleared for administrative separation. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with disturbance of Conduct and Mood; Personality Disorder not otherwise specified, with Cluster B Traits; and Chronic Pain secondary to fractured wrist. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; military service 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 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. (7) Chapter 15 provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army's best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary's approved designee as announced in updated memoranda. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. 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 waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes. RE-3 applies to a 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 family issues and medical issues, to include mental health issues, affected behavior and ultimately led to the discharge. There is evidence in the AMHRR the applicant reported the family issues after the first AWOL offense and prior to the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 18 August 2011, which indicates the applicant was cleared for administrative separation. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with disturbance of Conduct and Mood; Personality Disorder not otherwise specified, with Cluster B Traits; and Chronic Pain secondary to fractured wrist. The applicant underwent medical examination between 11 and 15 August 2011, which further reflects insomnia; depression; marital strife; lost custody of child; and unfair treatment by the command. The MSE and medical examination were considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends the command ignored the ETS orders and discharged the applicant for the AWOL offense. The AMHRR reflects the applicant did receive REFRAD orders, with a separation date of 12 February 2012, but the orders were revoked to reflect the approved discharge and the applicant was issued discharge orders, with a discharge date of 30 November 2011. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow veteran's benefits. Eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 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. Applicant was diagnosed in service with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) for which applicant is also service connected by the VA that may mitigate the basis of separation. (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 MDD for which applicant is also service connected by the VA. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor, after applying liberal consideration, opined that the applicant's MDD does not mitigate the applicant's AWOL and FTR that were the basis of separation because there are no natural sequelae between MDD and going AWOL, and the applicant self-reported that applicant's AWOL was due to marital issues, not applicant's MDD. (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 applicant's MDD outweighed the unmitigated AWOL and FTR basis for applicant's separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends family issues and medical issues, to include mental health issues, affected behavior and ultimately led to the discharge. The Board considered this contention but determined that this contention did not warrant any change to the applicant's discharge. (2) The applicant contends the command ignored the ETS orders and discharged the applicant for the AWOL offense. The Board determined that due to the seriousness of the misconduct including conscious, deliberate decisions the applicant made when presented with challenges, a command's choice of disciplinary actions does not excuse the misconduct or warrant any change to the discharge. The Board voted after considering the contention and finding the weight of the evidence did not support a conclusion that the Command acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. In this case, the Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable. (3) The applicant contends good service. The Board determined the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant's service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By being AWOL, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (4) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow veteran's benefits. The Board determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post- 9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare or VA loans, do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. c. The Board determined 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, the applicant's MDD did not outweigh the unmitigated two offense of 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 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 AR20210002900 1