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, having mental health issues/PTSD after a friend was killed in Korea and the applicant did not have the coping skills to manage. The applicant was not able to handle the pressure once promoted and did not have the personality to supervise other people as people tend to take advantage of the applicant. The applicant did not know what else to do and took off because the applicant could not handle the pressure. The applicant knows now it was not the right thing to do. The applicant had honorable service prior to this incident and now requests consideration for an upgrade. In a records review conducted on 29 March 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 SEC IV / JJD / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 12 October 2004 c. Separation Facts: (1) Pursuant to Special Court-Martial Empowered to Adjudge a Bad-Conduct Discharge: As announced by Special Court-Martial Order Number 32, dated 11 March 2004, the applicant was found guilty of: Charge I, in violation of Article 85, on or about 19 June 2002, absent himself from the unit until on or about 19 July 2002. (2) Adjudged Sentence: Reduction to E-1; to be confined for 225 days, and to be discharged from the service with a Bad Conduct discharge. (3) Date/Sentence Approved: 11 March 2004 / The reduction to E-1, confinement for 225 days, having been complied with and the bad conduct discharge would be executed. The portion of the sentence extending to confinement had been served. (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: 11 March 2004 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 14 November 2001 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 31 / HS Graduate / 86 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 92G10, Food Service Specialist / 8 years, 3 months, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 31 May 1995 - 16 February 1998 / HD RA, 17 February 1998 - 13 November 2000 / HD RA, 14 November 2000 - 13 November 2001 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / none f. Awards and Decorations: AGCM, NDSM, KDSM, ASR / The applicant's AMHRR reflects award of the ARCOM, however, the award is not reflected on the DD Form 214. g. Performance Ratings: NIF h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 19 June 2002; and, From "AWOL" to "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," effective 19 July 2002. Charge sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 1 year, 18 days: AWOL, 19 June 2002 - 28 December 2002 / Returned to Military Control CMA, 20 February 2003 - 25 August 2003 / Released from Confinement j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided VA Medical documents which reflect a diagnosis with PTSD and Major Depression Disorder Moderate. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293, VA Medical Records; VA Form 21-0781; VA Form 21-4138; DA Form 638; ARCOM Certificate; Statement from applicant; five letters of support. 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. e. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers' Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The service record indicates the applicant was adjudged guilty by a 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. 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 having mental health issues/PTSD after a friend was killed in Korea and not having the coping skills to manage. The applicant's AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis. The applicant did submit evidence to support the contention the discharge resulted from a medical condition. The applicant provided VA Medical documents which reflect a diagnosis with PTSD and Major Depression Disorder Moderate. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends not being able to handle the pressure once promoted. The applicant did not have the personality to supervise other people as people tended to take advantage of the applicant. There is no evidence in the record the applicant ever sought assistance to overcome the insecurities or 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. 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 post-service with PTSD, which could potentially mitigate a discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? No. The Board's Medical Advisor found no in-service data and the VA records contain post-service BH diagnoses of Alcohol Dependence and PTSD, based on an incident that occurred post-service therefore there are no BH conditions that existed during applicant's military service or are service connected. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. It is the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, even after applying liberal consideration, that although the applicant has a BH diagnosis of PTSD it is not mitigating for the misconduct (AWOL) as the event that caused the PTSD occurred 7 years after military service, and the PTSD is not service-connected. (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 any of the applicant's medical conditions are service-connected, and therefore cannot mitigate the basis for applicant's separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends having mental health issues/PTSD after a friend was killed in Korea and not having the coping skills to manage. There is no law or regulation which requires that an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the Board determination that there is a condition or experience. The Board must also articulate the nexus between that condition or experience and the basis for separation. Then, the Board must determine that the condition or experience outweighed the basis for separation. In this case, the Board determined that the applicant's PTSD occurred 7 years after applicant's discharge, thus could not mitigate the applicant's AWOL that was the basis for separation. (2) The applicant contends not being able to handle the pressure once promoted. The Board determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with professional development. There is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued, or that command action throughout applicant's discharge process. (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 going AWOL, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. The applicant has exhausted their appeal options available with ADRB. However, the applicant may still apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. 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 PTSD did not mitigate the AWOL due to the traumatic event occurring 7 years after discharge from the military, thus could not mitigate the discharging offenses. 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 AR20210003101 1