1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 6 March 2020 b. Date Received: 28 July 2020 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant was suffering from severe depression and borderline personality disorder while in the service. This led the applicant to desertion due to the stress and mental burden of military expectations while in South Korea. While in South Korea the applicant was enrolled in the Addictions Medicine Intensive Outpatient Program (AMIOP) 5 week program for a psyche evaluation. The applicant is currently receiving medical and mental health care for drug and alcohol abuse as an inpatient at Westcare, a Veterans Affairs (VA) program. Receiving an honorable discharge will benefit the applicant in the pursuit of education. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 2 August 2023, 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, Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 11 September 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 20 August 2019 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 8 January 2019, the applicant escaped from the custody of Sergeant K__ W__, a Provost Marshall Officer, a person authorized to apprehend the applicant. On or about 6 January 2019, the applicant failed to obey a lawful order given by Colonel M__ A. C__ by wrongfully being off of the assigned installation during the curfew hours of 0100 and 0500 without an approved pass. On or about 7 January 2019, the applicant failed to obey a lawful order given by Colonel C__ by wrongfully being off of the assigned installation during the curfew hours of 0100 and 0500 without an approved pass. On or about 6 January 2019, without authority the applicant absent from the unit, Damage Troop, 2nd Cavalry, 13th Regiment, located at Camp Hovey, Republic of Korea, and did remain so absent until on or about 8 January 2019. On or about 6 January 2019, the applicant violated United States Forces Korea Regulation 27- 5, dated 9 July 2015, by wrongfully providing an alcoholic beverage to a Soldier who was under the age of 21. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 22 August 2019, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 29 August 2019 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 23 April 2018 / 3 years, 17 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / High School Graduate / 106 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 19K10, M1 Armor Crewman / 1 year, 4 months, 19 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Four Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY),” to “Absent Without Leave (AWOL),” effective 6 January 2019; From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective 8 January 2019. From “PDY” to “AWOL,” effective 8 January 2019; From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective 10 January 2019. Receipt for Inmate or Detained Person, dated 9 January 2019, reflects the applicant was charged with being AWOL (Article 86), flight from apprehension (Article 95(B)(2)), failure to obey General Order - Curfew Violation (Article 92). The applicant was released to the unit representative. Law Enforcement Report - Final, dated 14 January 2019, reflects an investigation established the applicant failed to obey General Order - Curfew Violation and was AWOL. Alcohol and drugs were involved and the applicant had a blood alcohol content of .112%. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 20 February 2019, for being AWOL and curfew violation. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 25 February 2019, for a notification of rehabilitation period of 30 days to prove that the applicant had the potential to provide useful service to the Army. If the applicant did not pass or did not show the potential to improve, the applicant would be recommended for separation under chapter 5-17. The applicant requested to waive the 30 day rehabilitation and acknowledged that in doing so the company commander would initiate a chapter 5-17, AR 635-200. Report of Medical Assessment, dated 29 March 2019, reflects the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: was seen for being inebriated on duty and has been being seen by behavioral health. Report of Medical History, dated 29 March 2019, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: diagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD) and ETOH (ethyl alcohol or ethanol) dependency and was currently in very a strict medical intervention plan with those services. On 9 January 2019 intent to inhale toxic chemicals or shoot self at the range, was admitted to inpatient services. Went AWOL at that time and was arrested by Korean police. Report of Medical Examination, dated 29 March 2019, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: MDD and ETOH dependence - currently in strict medical intervention regimen with behavioral health. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 24 June 2019, reflects the applicant would be flagged effective 3 June 2019. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL for 5 days, 6 January 2019 to 8 January 2019 and 8 January 2019 to 10 January 2019. This period is not annotated on the DD Form 214 block 29. j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Medical record from 121st General Hospital, dated 13 February 2019, reflects the applicant was seen for depression medication. Medical record from 121st General Hospital, dated 14 February 2019, reflects the applicant had problems with MDD, single episode, unspecified and alcohol dependence, uncomplicated. Applicant was attending the substance abuse program and attended the AMIOP class. Medical record from 121st General Hospital, dated 21 February 2019, reflects the applicant had a telephone consult for depression. Medical record from 121st General Hospital, dated 27 April 2019, reflects the applicant was seen for attempted suicide. Applicant has history of depression. Medical record from William Beaumont Army Medical Center, dated 25 June 2019, reflects the applicant had a diagnosis of adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood and was prescribed medicine. Medical records 29 August 2019, active problems reflects adjustment disorder, unspecified on 8 May 2019, borderline personality disorder on 8 May 2019, adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood on 4March 2019, alcohol dependence, in remission on 4 March 2019, MDD, single episode, unspecified on 13 February 2019, and alcohol dependence, uncomplicated on 28 January 2019. (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 7 June 2019, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. Behavioral health disorder was present resulting in duty limitations that may impact deployability. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; could appreciate the difference between right and wrong; and met medical retention requirements. The applicant had been screened for PTSD and mTBI with negative results. The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. The applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder, unspecified, borderline personality disorder, and alcohol dependence, in remission. It was the provider's opinion that the effects of borderline personality disorder constitutes matters in extenuation that relate to the basis for administrative separation (Chapter 14-12c) and the characterization of service of the applicant and while not excusing the behavior it may have significantly contributed to it. This opinion was based solely on the clinical judgment of the provider and does not constitute a forensic legal opinion as it pertains to criminal responsibility, state of mind at the time of any alleged behavior that was the basis for the administrative separation, competency, or other determinations typically required by courts. The command was advised to consider the influence of these conditions. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; DD Form 214; 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. 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: 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 Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms 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 the misconduct (serious offense), the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant was suffering from severe depression and borderline personality disorder while in the service. This led the applicant to desertion due to the stress and mental burden of military expectations while in South Korea. The applicant provided medical records that reflect the applicant had an adjustment disorder, unspecified, borderline personality disorder, adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, alcohol dependence, in remission, MDD, single episode, unspecified, and alcohol dependence, uncomplicated while in service. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a MSE on 7 June 2019, which indicates the applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder, unspecified, borderline personality disorder, and alcohol dependence, in remission. The applicant contends, in effect, receiving an honorable discharge will benefit the applicant in the pursuit of education. Eligibility for 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 and found that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses: Adjustment Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, and Borderline Personality Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held in-service diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, and Borderline Personality Disorder. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that an Adjustment Disorder is a low-level, temporary difficulty coping with stressors that does not alter cognitive capacity. Although Major Depressive Disorder is acknowledged, the diagnosis does not impair conscious decision making. Regarding the Personality Disorder, it provides context, but does not diminish an individuals’ ability to make purposeful choices understanding right from wrong with consequences. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, and Borderline Personality Disorder outweighed the applicant’s medically unmitigated offenses of failure to obey a lawful order, escaping from custody, AWOL, and providing alcohol to a minor. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the applicant was suffering from severe depression and borderline personality disorder while in the service. The Board liberally considered this contention but determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, and Borderline Personality Disorder outweighed the applicant’s medically unmitigated offenses of failure to obey a lawful order, escaping from custody, AWOL, and providing alcohol to a minor. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is not warranted. (2) The applicant contends receiving an honorable discharge will benefit the applicant in the pursuit of education. The Board considered this contention and 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, considering 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 Adjustment Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, and Borderline Personality Disorder did not outweigh the medically unmitigated offenses of offenses of failure to obey a lawful order, escaping from custody, AWOL, and providing alcohol to a minor. The Board also considered the totality of the applicant's record and determined that it does not warrant a discharge upgrade. 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. Therefore, the applicant’s General discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable discharge. (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 AR20210006555 1