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 under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, applicant's reasons for disputing applicant's discharge are based on the events and situations which led to it. When the applicant deployed, everything was fine and was going smoothly until applicant began to see things applicant was never prepared mentally to see. The applicant was experiencing people dying from hostile fire, being shot at, and other situations. This played a role in how the applicant responded during the daily situations. The applicant was mentally ill and still feels the effects today. The applicant's attitude changed completely and applicant was not the same person. Since the deployment, the applicant became more aggressive towards everyone and was experiencing nightmares. When the applicant returned to Germany, applicant had been on a daily battle of surviving the war and it has haunted applicant to this day. The applicant did get into some trouble, but was granted permission verbally; applicant just failed to sign out. The applicant got in more issues due to what the applicant was experiencing, but had no clue what it could be. The applicant had moments of aggressiveness and other moments of what applicant is unable to describe. The applicant sought help to understand what applicant was going through because applicant needed to be the person the applicant was before the deployment. The applicant was advised by a close friend to speak with applicant's chain of command, which applicant did, but applicant did not receive any assistance. The applicant was mistreated, humiliated, and punished in ways applicant would not have done to anyone else. The applicant had to sleep in the hallway where everyone could see and harass applicant. The applicant's commander, during Friday formations, would talk about the applicant in front of the company. These challenges made the applicant worse and applicant lost the desire to do anything. The applicant's life took a dive, which the applicant could not recover. The applicant asked for help and did not receive any assistance. The applicant was unable to sleep due to having nightmares. The applicant spoke with the Chaplain because any possible exit would have been easier. The applicant informed the Chaplain, applicant would not hurt himself, although applicant once thought about it. The applicant requested to be reassigned to the United States in order to receive a fresh start, but it was denied. The applicant was depressed, unhappy, and stressed out. The applicant received no help and was forced to sign a discharge applicant was not happy with. The applicant was told applicant would receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, but applicant's commander swore they would do whatever it took for it not to happen. The applicant was threatened by the commander to sign the waiver or applicant would be court-martialed. The applicant believed there was no choice but to sign the waiver to put an end to applicant's worst nightmare. The commander said to the applicant, "If I had the power, you would never be able to leave Puerto Rico." The applicant believes applicant deserves an upgrade based on how applicant was treated and the injuries sustained during deployment. The applicant requests an upgrade in order to receive the benefits earned. In a records review conducted on 16 February 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 27 February 2006 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 January 2006 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant received three Article 15's for the following offenses: Article 86, UCMJ, for AWOL; Article 90, UCMJ, for Disobeying a superior commissioned officer; Article 92, UCMJ, for Failure to obey order or regulation; and, Article 107, UCMJ, for False official statement. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 19 January 2006 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 19 January 2006, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of his case before an administrative separation board. On 24 January 2006, after being recommended for under other than honorable conditions discharge by intermediate commanders, the applicant consulted with counsel and signed another document, unconditionally waiving consideration of his case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 14 February 2006 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 17 November 2004 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / GED / 101 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 3 years, 10 months, 20 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 8 April 2002 - 5 February 2003 / HD IADT, 15 May 2002 - 25 October 2002 / HD (Concurrent Service) RA, 6 February 2003 - 16 November 2004 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Iraq (28 March 2004 - 17 February 2005) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 27 July 2005, for, on two occasions, failing to go to applicant's appointed place of duty (16 June and 10 July 2005) and willfully disobeying a lawful command from Captain (CPT) J.C., to sign in and out at the CQ desk (between 16 and 19 June 2005). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; forfeiture of $416 pay (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 7 days. FG Article 15, dated 16 September 2005, for being AWOL (between 12 and 18 August 2005); on two occasions, failing to go at the time prescribed to applicant's appointed place of duty (11 May and 19 August 2005); and, willfully disobeying a lawful command from CPT J.G., to sign in with the Staff Duty on the weekdays, every hour on the hour between 1700 - 2300 hours (23 August 2005). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $617 pay per month for two months (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. FG Article 15, dated 2 December 2005, for being AWOL (between 3 and 9 November 2005); and, for making a false official statement, to wit: "I was on sickcall" (6 October 2005). The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $618 pay per month for two months; and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Eight Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Memorandum, subject: Mental Status Evaluation for [Applicant], dated 25 October 2005, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment Disorder with anxiety and depressed mood; and, Occupational problem. Report of Medical Examination, dated 1 November 2005, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Chronic lower back pain; Anxiety/depression. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; DD Form 214; Memorandum, subject: Mental Status Evaluation for [Applicant] (1 of 2 pages). 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 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. (6) 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. (7) Paragraph 14-12b, addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 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 "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12b, pattern of misconduct. 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 a 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 suffering from mental health issues which affected applicant's behavior and led to applicant's discharge. The applicant's AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 25 October 2005, which indicates the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment Disorder with anxiety and depressed mood; and, Occupational problem. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends applicant was harassed by the command and received no assistance with applicant's mental health issues. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the harassment. The applicant's AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service, to include a combat tour. 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 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 DoD and VA medical records and found the applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder, which, in the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor could potentially mitigate AWOL, FRT, disobeying a superior commissioned officer, failure to obey order or regulation, and making a false official statement, which led to separation from the Army. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor reviewed DoD and VA medical records and found an in-service BH diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor arrived at this finding after reviewing the available information and in accordance with the 3 Sep 2014 Hagel Liberal Consideration Memorandum and the 25 Aug 2017 Clarifying Guidance, opining that the applicant has a BH diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder that is not a mitigating factor in applicant's misconduct that was basis for separation. AWOL, disobeying a superior commissioned officer, failure to an obey order or regulation, and making a false official statement are not part of the sequela of symptoms associated with Adjustment Disorder. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the ADRB's application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the Board's Medical Advisor that the applicant's AWOL, disobeying a superior commissioned officer, failure to an obey order or regulation, and making a false official statement outweighed the applicant's Adjustment Disorder for the reasons listed in (3) above. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends suffering from mental health issues which affected applicant's behavior and led to applicant's discharge. The Board considered this contention, however the Board determined that Adjustment Disorder it is not a mitigating factor in applicant's misconduct. Ultimately, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends applicant was harassed by the command and received no assistance with applicant's mental health issues. The Board considered this contention but determined that the evidence did not support a conclusion that either command harassed or failed to provide mental assistance for applicant. (3) The applicant contends good service, to include a combat tour. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant's willingness to serve and considered this contention during board proceedings. However, 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 AWOL, disobeying a superior commissioned officer, failure to an obey order or regulation, and making a false official statement, 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 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 of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant's Adjustment Disorder did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of AWOL, disobeying a superior commissioned officer, failure to an obey order or regulation, and making a false official statement. 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 AR20210003131 1