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 Request and Issues. The current characterization of service for the period under review is under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, dedicating eight and a half years of the applicant’s life to the Army. The applicant believes PTSD and mental health issues affected the applicant’s behavior. The applicant was not afforded the opportunity for rehabilitation from the applicant’s last episode. The applicant desires medical coverage as well as medical coverage for the applicant’s two children. b. Board Type and Decision. In a records review conducted on 7 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 15 June 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date and Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): On 14 May 2018, the applicant was charged with: Charge I: Violating Article 86, UCMJ, The Specification: Being AWOL from the unit from 30 April to 12 May 2018. Charge II: Violating Article 90, UCMJ, The Specification: Willfully disobey a lawful command from Major A.B., the superior commissioned officer, to remain at Fort Bliss on 11 May 2018. Charge III: Violating Article 92, UCMJ, The Specification: Violate a lawful general regulation, by wrongfully traveling to Chihuahua, Mexico on 11 May 2018. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 17 May 2018 (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. (4) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (5) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 6 June 2018 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 31 December 2014 / 2 years / The AMHRR is void of any enlistment contract retaining the applicant on active duty after the initial / most recent enlistment period. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 37 / GED / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 19D20, Calvary Scout / 9 years, 4 months, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 10 February 2009 – 30 December 2014 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Iraq (16 December 2009 – 10 December 2010) / The tour in Iraq is not annotated on the DD Form 214, block 18, and the time served in Korea is not annotated in block 12f. f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-4, AAM-5, MUC, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ICM-CS, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: 2 January 2014 – 16 May 2014 / Among the Best 17 May 2014 – 18 March 2015 / Fully Capable 1 September 2016 – 1 September 2017 / Not Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge Sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c. CG Article 15, dated 24 February 2015, for, on two occasions, fail to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty, to wit: 0630 accountability formation (1 and 29 December 2014) and as a result of wrongful previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor, incapacitated for the proper performance of the duties (29 December 2014). The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $602 pay (suspended); extra duty and restriction for 14 days; and, an oral reprimand. FG Article 15, dated 29 June 2015, for, with intent to deceive, make to Investigator W.E., a false official statement, to wit: “No,” when asked “Did you strike anyone?” (26 May 2015) and unlawfully strike Staff Sergeant J.S. on the face with the hand (24 May 2015). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4. Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial, reflects on 27 April 2018, the applicant was found guilty of the following: Charge I: Violating Article 92, UCMJ, The Specification: Violate a lawful general regulation by wrongfully attempting to substitute another substance for the urine during a urinalysis on 30 May 2017. Plea: Guilty. Charge II: Violating Article 86, UCMJ, The Specification: Being AWOL from the unit from 20 September to 8 November 2017. Plea: Guilty. Charge III: Violating Article 112a, UCMJ, The Specification: Wrongfully use d-amphetamine (DAMP) between 24 May and 31 May 2017. Plea: Guilty. The sentenced adjudged: Reduction to E-1; forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for one month (recommended suspension); restriction for 60 days. On 27 April 2018, the sentence was approved. Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY)” to “Absent Without Leave (AWOL),” effective date 30 April 2018; and From “AWOL” to “Dropped From Rolls (DFR),” effective date 1 May 2018. Memorandum for Record, subject: Pretrial Confinement [Applicant], 12 May 2018, reflects the applicant’s immediate commander ordered the applicant into pretrial confinement. The commander detailed the reasons pretrial confinement was necessary. The commander further indicated the border patrol intercepted the applicant returning from Mexico, without authorization, on 11 May 2018. The applicant possessed prescription medication which the applicant admitted to purchasing in Mexico. The applicant was incarcerated overnight. On 12 May 2018, the applicant was picked up at the gate for pretrial confinement, but during the physical the applicant indicated suicidal ideations and was admitted to 11 West psychiatric wing. Memorandum, subject: Pretrial Confinement 48 and 72-hour Memorandum: [Applicant], dated 14 May 2018, reflects the applicant’s brigade commander concluded the applicant’s continued confinement was necessary because lesser means of restraint would be inadequate to ensure the applicant will appear at trial, pretrial hearing, or investigation. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL 62 days, 20 September 2017 to 8 November 2017 and 30 April 2018 to 11 May 2018. These periods are not annotated on the DD Form 214, block 29. j. Applicant Provided and/or AMHHR Listed PTSD / TBI / Other Behavioral Health Conditions: 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: 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), 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) 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) Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt. (6) Paragraph 10-8a stipulates a discharge under other than honorable conditions normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record during the current enlistment. (See chap 3, sec II.) (7) Paragraph 10b stipulates Soldiers who have completed entry-level status, characterization of service as honorable is not authorized unless the Soldier’s record is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization clearly would be improper. 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 “KFS” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. 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-4 applies to a person separated from last period of service with a nonwaivable 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 evidence of AMHRR confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. The applicant, in consultation with legal counsel, voluntarily requested, in writing, a discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense, and indicated an understanding an under other than honorable conditions discharge could be received, and the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veterans’ benefits. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. The applicant contends PTSD and other mental health conditions affected behavior and ultimately led to the discharge. The applicant’s AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis or any other mental health conditions. The applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends not being afforded the opportunity for rehabilitation. The evidence confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge and in consultation with legal counsel, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of court-martial. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow medical benefits. Eligibility for veteran’s benefits to include medical benefits 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. 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, applicant submissions and third-party statements, and found the applicant was diagnosed with, Depression, Major Depression, Anxiety Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Cannabis use, and PTSD, which could potentially mitigate the applicant’s discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board’s Medical Advisor found the applicant’s Other Stimulate Dependence, Alcohol Dependence, Depression, Major Depression, Anxiety Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Cannabis use, and PTSD existed during service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board’s Medical Advisor opined that the applicant’s BH diagnoses of Other Stimulate Dependence, Alcohol Dependence, Depression, Major Depression, Anxiety Disorder Adjustment Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Cannabis use, and PTSD do not mitigate the applicant’s AWOL, disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer, and wrongfully traveling to Chihuahua, Mexico. (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 Other Stimulate Dependence, Alcohol Dependence, Depression, Major Depression, Anxiety Disorder Adjustment Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Cannabis use, and PTSD outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – AWOL, disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer, and wrongfully traveling to Chihuahua, Mexico. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends PTSD and other mental health conditions affected behavior and ultimately led to the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant’s PTSD is not connected to the applicant’s military service. The applicant’s service- connected diagnoses of Depression, Major Depression, Anxiety Disorder, and Adjustment Disorder do not excuse or mitigate the applicant’s basis for separation – AWOL, disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer, and wrongfully traveling to Chihuahua, Mexico. (2) The applicant contends not being afforded the opportunity for rehabilitation. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant requested a discharge in lieu of court-martial and the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge. The Board noted that this action is a procedural step which is part of a normal process, when an alternative forum is chosen, there is no evidence of the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. (3) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record, but 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, disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer, and wrongfully traveling to Chihuahua, Mexico, 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 medical 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 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 , Depression, Major Depression, Anxiety Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder and PTSD did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of being AWOL, disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer, and wrongfully traveling to Chihuahua, Mexico. 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 AR20210002912 1