1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 8 June 2020 b. Date Received: 21 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, psychological/psychiatric conditions were exacerbated by situations and interactions with the chain of command during the applicant’s time in service that contributed to the applicant’s failure to meet Army standards and expectations. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 28 July 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 (AWOL) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c (1) / JKD / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 11 December 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 25 November 2019 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) from 15-17 July 2019. After returning, the applicant was informed that this would result in receiving an Article 15. Shortly thereafter, the applicant again went AWOL on 13 September 2019 and remained absent until 30 September 2019. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 27 November 2019, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 6 December 2019 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 22 May 2018 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / High School Graduate / 110 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / None / 1 year, 5 months, 19 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 4 November 2019, for going AWOL from 15-17 July 2019 and from13-30 September 2019. In addition, the applicant made an official statement to a senior noncommissioned officer, to wit: “[Applicant] went to North Carolina and Florida while AWOL,” or words to that effect, which statement was totally false, and was then known to the applicant to be so false. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; extra duty and restriction for 30 days; and an oral reprimand. Six Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY),” to “AWOL,” effective 15 July 2019; From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective 17 July 2019; From “PDY” to “AWOL,” effective 13 September 2019; From “AWOL” to “Dropped From Rolls (DFR),” effective 14 September 2019; From “DFR” to “PDY,” effective 30 September 2019; and From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective 10 October 2019. Two Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. The applicant’s Enlisted Record Brief, dated 12 December 2019, reflects the applicant was flagged for adverse action (AA), effective 15 July 2019 and for involuntary separation/field initiated (BA) effective 22 October 2019; was ineligible for reenlistment due to pending separation (9V). The Assignment Eligibility Availability (AEA) code reflects AEA code “L” which has no assignment restrictions. The applicant was reduced from E-3 to E-1 effective 11 November 2019. FLAGS / AEA codes: AA, BA / L RE/Prohibition code: 9V DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)), dated 5 September 2019, reflects the applicant was flagged for adverse action (AA), effective 5 September 2019. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 30 October 2019, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. 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 post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI) with negative results. The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. The command was advised to consider the influence of these conditions. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 31 days: AWOL, 15-17 July 2019 / NIF AWOL, 13 September -10 October 2019 / Apprehended by Military Authorities j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Chronological Record of Medical Care, reflects on: 27 March 2019 - diagnosed with problem related to unspecified psychosocial circumstances and cluster b personality features as of 22 January 2019 3 May 2019 - Adjustment Insomnia F51 .02 25 November 2019 - Borderline personality disorder F60.3 and Other problems related to employment 256.89 (2) AMHRR Listed: MSE as described in previous paragraph 4h. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; 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(1) allows for an absentee returned to military control from a status of absent without leave or desertion to be separated for commission of a serious offense. 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 “JKD” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c(1), misconduct (AWOL). 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 applicant contends, in effect, psychological/psychiatric conditions were exacerbated by situations and interactions with the chain of command during the applicant’s time in service that contributed to the applicant’s failure to meet Army standards and expectations. The applicant provided nine pages of Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated between 3 May and 25 November 2019 that reflects the applicant was diagnosed with problem related to unspecified psychosocial circumstances and cluster b personality features, adjustment insomnia, borderline personality disorder, and other problems related to employment. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 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 Insomnia, Other Specified Personality Disorder, and Borderline Personality Disorder with pre-enlistment diagnoses of Bipolar Disorder, and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD). (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant was diagnosed in-service with Adjustment Insomnia, Other Specified Personality Disorder, and Borderline Personality Disorder with pre-enlistment diagnoses of Bipolar Disorder and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD). (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that while a Personality Disorder provides context, it does not impair an individual’s ability to know right from wrong and make conscious choices understanding the consequences. In terms of childhood diagnoses, it is rare for a child to be diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder and given the other childhood diagnoses, clear Personality Disorder, and absence of mania without medication, it is more likely than not the applicant did not and does not have Bipolar Disorder. Accordingly, this is not applied. (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 Bipolar Disorder and Personality Disorders outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – absences without leave - for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): The applicant contends, in effect, psychological/psychiatric conditions were exacerbated by situations and interactions with the chain of command during the applicant’s time in service that contributed to the applicant’s failure to meet Army standards and expectations. The Board liberally considered this contention but determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Bipolar Disorder and Personality Disorders outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – absent without leave - for the aforementioned reasons. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is not warranted. 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 Adjustment Insomnia, Other Specified Personality Disorder, and Borderline Personality Disorder with pre-enlistment diagnoses of Bipolar Disorder, and Oppositional Defiant Disorder did not outweigh the medically unmitigated offenses of absent without leave. The Board found that the totality of the applicant's record 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 AR20210007233 1