1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 8 September 2020 b. Date Received: 12 November 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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC). The applicant requests an upgrade to general (under honorable conditions) discharge. b. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, life has significantly changed from their maladaptive behaviors displayed during their military career. The applicant states the onset of depression, PTSD and MST incurred during OIF which caused an alcohol drug addictive lifestyle, inevitably resulted in their negative discharge. Currently they are employed by a VA Medical Center as a peer support specialist assisting veterans with mental health issues. Additionally, the applicant states their recovery has allowed them to progress into a positive and productive citizen in society and is remorseful for their past behaviors. c. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 5 January 2024, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable, therefore voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and change the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. No change to the RE code. Additionally, Board member names are 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 b. Date of Discharge: 13 November 2006 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant's request for voluntary discharge under provision of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: 24 October 2006 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 27 October 2006 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 4 May 2006 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 40 / Bachelor's Degree / 93 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E6 / 42A (Human Resources Specialist) / 6 months, 10 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: * USAR, 10 September 1997 - 27 January 1998 / HD * IADT, 28 January 1998 - 11 June 1998 / HD * USAR, 12 June 1998 - 28 April 2001 / HD * Concurrent USAR Service * AD, 29 April 2001 - 4 September 2002 / HD * Concurrent USAR service e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: The DD Form 214 provides the applicant was awarded the GWOTEM, GWOTSM, and AFRM-M. Additionally, the applicant indicated they deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) on both their application and their self- authored statement. f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, ARCAM - 2, NDSM / GWOTEM / GWOTSM / ASR / AFRM-M g. Performance Ratings: 1 November 2003 - 31 October 2004 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: (1) On 28 January 2005, the applicant reenlisted in the USAR for 3 years as a SSG; The Enlisted Record Brief provides the applicant was married with three children. (2) On 2 May 2005, the applicant was ordered to active duty on Title 10 orders for one year, assigned to Atlanta International Airport, GA, until 3 May 2006. (3) Two Personnel Actions forms indicate the applicant's duty statuses changed: * On 12 October 2005, from "present for duty" to "AWOL" * On 14 October 2005, from "AWOL" to "present for duty" (4) On 17 October 2005, the applicant received a developmental counseling for having been AWOL from their place of duty on 11 - 12 October 2005. The applicant contacted their master sergeant (MSG) on 13 October 2005, after the MSG failed attempts to reach them, stating they needed help. On 14 October 2005, MSG escorted them to Fort McPherson (Mental Health) clinic for treatment. (5) Two Personnel Actions forms indicate the applicant's duty statuses changed: * On 30 October 2005, from "present for duty" to "AWOL" * On 2 November 2005, from "AWOL" to "present for duty" (6) On 26 November 2005, the applicant received a developmental counseling for having been AWOL from their place of duty on 31 October - 1 November 2005 before going to treatment. (a) On 2 November 2005, the applicant contacted their MSG stating they wanted help for their addiction in which leadership directed them to report to ASAP at Fort McPherson, GA; the applicant entered a 21-day rehabilitation program on the same day. (b) On 27 November 2005, the applicant agreed to the counseling and noted in the remarks they called in sick on 31 October and stated to MSG they were diagnosed with shingles affecting their left eye and needed medical attention. (7) On 31 January 2006, the commander decided not to take UCMJ action on the applicant, stating the misconduct was a direct result of their alcohol dependency addiction for which they were now being treated. The commander met with the applicant's supervisory chain of command at the Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson Personnel Assistance Point (PAP) and received a treatment update. The commander stated they reserved the right to reinstate possible UCMJ action should the applicant have further incidents or fail to complete their prescribed course of treatment for their alcohol dependency. (8) On 5 May 2006, the applicant was ordered to active duty [partially mobilized in support of Operation Noble Eagle] from 4 May 2006 to 25 November 2006, assigned to Fort McPherson, GA. (9) Two Personnel Action forms, indicate the applicant's duty statuses changed: * On 15 August 2006, from "present for duty" to "AWOL"; provides the statement of SFC (Asst NCOIC), dated 16 August 2006; was made aware the GSA duty van was not at the Westin Hotel (designated location) on 15 August 2006 at 0515; SFC did their due diligence to get in contact with the applicant and locate the vehicle to no avail; after not hearing from the applicant or hearing any updates concerning the vehicle, SFC reported the vehicle stolen as advised by leadership; was additionally advised to report the applicant's AWOL status * On 16 August 2006 at 0834, the vehicle was reported stolen with the Atlanta Police Department as a "theft by conversion" since the applicant had permission to use the vehicle during duty hours, however, did not return the vehicle as required; also listed the applicant as "AWOL" * On 17 August 2006, from "AWOL" to "present for duty" (10) Seven Sworn Statements provide the following: (a) SFC (Asst NCOIC) provides three statements documenting the details of the applicant's AWOL occurrence (15 - 18 August 2006), how they attempted to recover the missing GSA Van, reporting the stolen vehicle by conversion, and the vehicle's return. (b) On 17 August 2006, the applicant provides a sworn statement documenting their having relapsed since 22 July 2006 after 6 months of sobriety, their frequent use for the last 3 weeks, their purchasing and their abuse of crack cocaine and alcohol, detailed how they were robbed of the GSA Van, the unsuccessful 911 call to report it, and their spouse picking them up. (c) CPT (Company CDR) provides two statements documenting SFC notifying them of the applicant's AWOL and the missing GSA Van, the SFCs picking the applicant up on 17 August 2006 and taking them to the Fort McPherson's Provost Marshal's Office (PMO) to file a report and provide their statement, getting ASAP involved, and the command-directed urinalysis on 18 August 2006 to be tested for drug use. (d) 1SG provides a statement which speaks to the commander notifying them of the applicant's AWOL and the missing GSA Van, the SFCs picking the applicant up on 17 August 2006 and escorting them to the PMO, the applicant's confession to having a crack cocaine addiction along with their alcohol addiction and having been afraid to inform the counselors of their cocaine addiction when they were in residential counseling. (e) MSG provides a statement documenting their involvement in retrieving the stolen government phone from the person the applicant sold it to for $80; their unsuccessful attempts at reaching the applicant, and the return of the GSA Van. (11) On 11 September 2006, the commander barred the applicant from purchasing alcoholic beverages on Fort McPherson, GA and revoked their leave and pass privileges. They were counseled on moving into the barracks, providing a urine specimen, and attending their ASAP meetings every Wednesday. Later the commander selected to disagree with information above, stating Servicemember was not given proper treatment for their addictive alcoholic behavior; they need intensive treatment for behavior; unable to adapt, incoherent, does not understand what is happening and totally unaware. (12) On 13 September 2006, the applicant was charged in violation of Articles 112a, 121, 92, and 86, UCMJ. Charges were referred to the special court-martial convened by CMCO number 8 dated 9 September 2005, as amended by CMCO number 1, dated 13 February 2006, as further amended by CMCO number 3, dated 6 March 2006. (a) On or about 22 July - 17 August 2006, they wrongfully using cocaine. (b) On or about 14 - 17 August 2006, for stealing a government cellular telephone, valued $150.00 and wrongfully appropriated a Chevy Astro 2005, valued at $18,000. (c) On or about 14 - 17 August 2006, for dereliction of duty failing to aid transient soldiers at Hartsfield Jackson International Airport, Atlanta, GA. (d) On or about 12 - 14 October 2005, AWOL between 31 October - 2 November 2005, and between 14 - 17 August 2006, without authority, go from their appointed place of duty (HRC, ATL PAP, Hartsfield Jackson International Airport, Atlanta, GA); on or about 6 - 11 September 2006, they were AWOL. (13) On 28 September 2006, the applicant was charged in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ for wrongful use of cocaine on or about 6 - 11 September 2006. Charges were referred to the special court-marital convened by CMCO number 8, dated 9 September 2005, as amended by CMCO number 1, dated 13 February 2006, as further amended by CMCO number 3, dated 6 March 2006. (14) On 10 October 2006, the applicant made a police report with the Marta Police Department providing their vehicle (2004 Chevy Blazer) was stolen and described the subjects. (a) On 13 October 2006, the officer provides a statement stating after conducting their investigation, the applicant admitted to the filing of a false report on 10 October 2006. The applicant admitted they let an unknown subject borrow their car for drugs and money on 6 October 2006; based on their investigation, the car was never stolen from Marta. (b) On 19 October 2006, a Wanted Notice and an Affidavit for Arrest was issued for the applicant for making a false official statement. The applicant was arrested; On 23 October 2006, they were released with a $3,000 bond. (15) On 24 October 2006, after consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-300, chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. In their request, they affirmed no one had subjected them to coercion, and counsel had advised them of the implications of their request. The applicant further acknowledged they were guilty of the charge against them or a lesser one and they elected to submit a statement on their behalf. (a) The same day, defense counsel endorsed the applicant's voluntary request for discharge acknowledging they were counseled on the possible effects of an under other than honorable discharge. (b) On 25 October 2006, provides the applicant submitted a statement on their behalf in which they apologized and asked for forgiveness for the wrong and the dishonor they caused to the United States Army. The applicant goes on to say they were afforded many opportunities to recover from their alcohol disease and addiction but struggled severely for the six months leading up to their separation. They stated they were proud to have served their country and accomplished so much, highlighting they were within 12 credits from completing their master's degree in counseling. The applicant requested their character outside of their substance abuse issues be considered for a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge in lieu of a UOTHC stating their family would suffer greatly from a Chapter 10. (16) On 26 October 2006, the immediate commander recommended approval of the applicant's voluntary discharge request with a characterization of service of Under Other than Honorable Conditions and forwarded it through the chain; the intermediate commander concurred and forwarded it to the separation authority. (17) On 27 October 2006, the staff judge advocate concurred with both the company battalion commanders, recommending approval the request with a characterization of service of Under Other than Honorable Conditions. The same day, appropriate approval authority approved separation with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions and reduction to the lowest enlisted rank. (18) On 13 November 2006, the applicant was discharged from the active component accordingly. A DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release of Discharge from Active Duty) reflects the applicant completed 6 months and 10 days of net active service. The applicant has not completed their first full term of service. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Although the applicant marked PTSD, Other Mental Health, and MST on their Application for a Discharge Review (DD Form 293), documentation was not provided. (2) AMHRR Listed: On 21 November 2005, the Program Director from Anchor Hospital, Atlanta GA, provides the applicant received extensive in-patient treatment opportunities; has made progress in treatment by completing their scheduled tasks from their treatment plan; remained active in group therapy sessions. The applicant had extensive education on the concept of addiction, spirituality, and the twelve-step recovery program. Discussed relapse risk factors and developed a prevention plan with the applicant. Their belief that the applicant needed to be taken out of their environment to get a base line of abstinence. Discussed the way forward for the applicant to either attend their outpatient program or the ASAP program to help them with reintegrating to home and work life. Completed treatment and released on 23 November 2005. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Application for the Review of Discharge; Self-Authored Statement; Master's degree of Social Work Certificate; Certified Peer Specialist Certificate; Certified Anger Management Specialist CAMS II Certificate 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: In addition to recovering from their addiction, the applicant earned their master's degree in Social Work, became a certified Peer Specialist as well as a Certified Anger Management Specialist (CAMS II). The applicant currently works at a VA medical center helping veterans heal from mental health issues. 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) 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. (2) 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. (3) An 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. (4) Chapter 10, Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court Martial is applicable to members who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service. The request could be submitted at any time after the charges had been preferred. Although an honorable or general was authorized, an under other than honorable conditions discharge was considered appropriate, unless the record was so meritorious it would warrant an honorable. (a) After receiving legal counseling, the soldier may elect to submit a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. The soldier will sign a written request, certifying that they have been counseled, understands their rights, and may receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions. (b) The following will accompany the request for discharge: * A copy of the court-martial Charge Sheet (DD Form 458) * Report of medical examination and mental status evaluation, if conducted * A complete copy of all reports of investigation * Any statement, documents, or other matter considered by the commanding officer in making their recommendation, including any information presented for consideration by the soldier or consulting counsel * A statement of any reasonable ground for belief that the soldier is, or was at the time of misconduct, mentally defective, deranged, or abnormal. When appropriate, evaluation by a psychiatrist will be included. (5) Chapter 15 provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army's best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary's approved designee as announced in updated memoranda. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. 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 waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: (1) RE-1 Applies to: Person completing his or her term of active service who is considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. Eligibility: Qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. (2) 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. (3) RE-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable 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. g. Manual for Courts-Martial (2005 Edition), United States, states military law consists of the statutes governing the military establishment and regulations issued thereunder, the constitutional powers of the President and regulations issued thereunder, and the inherent authority of military commanders. Military law includes jurisdiction exercised by courts-martial and the jurisdiction exercised by commanders with respect to nonjudicial punishment. The purpose of military law is to promote justice, to assist in maintaining good orders and discipline in the Armed Forces. (1) Article 86 (absence without leave) states in subparagraph being absence without leave for more than 3 days but not more than 30 days, the maximum punishment consists of confinement for 6 months and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 6 months. (2) Article 92 (failure to obey order or regulation) states in subparagraph failing to obey an order or regulation, the maximum punishment consists of dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years. (3) Article 112a (wrongful use, possession, etc., of controlled substances) states in subparagraph wrongful use of a controlled substances, the maximum punishment consists of dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and confinement for 5 years. (4) Article 121 (larceny and wrongful appropriation) states in subparagraph larceny and wrongful appropriation, the maximum punishment for military property valued at $500 or less is a bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year. Military property of a value of more than $500 or of any military motor vehicle, aircraft, vessel, firearm, or explosive - the maximum punishment is a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 10 years. h. Army Regulation 630-10 (Absence, Without Leave, Desertion, and Administration of Personnel Involved in Civilian Court Proceedings) provides policies and procedures for reporting unauthorized absentees and deserters, the administering of absent without leave (AWOL) personnel and deserters, returning absentees and deserters to military control and the surrendering of military personnel to civilian law enforcement authorities; it provides: (1) When a soldier returns from an absence that is or appears to be unauthorized, the unit commander informally investigates whether disciplinary action should be taken and if the soldier be charged with time lost. Classification of an absence is dependent upon such factors as the following: * Order and instructions, written/oral, received before/during the absence * Age, military experience, and general intelligence of the Soldier * Number and type of contact the Soldier had with the military absent * Complete or incomplete results of a court-martial decision if any (2) Paragraph 4-4d, states an absence immediately following authorized leave is classified as AWOL. Should the absence subsequently be reclassified, the soldiers leave is corrected to reflect the reclassified absence, except if the absence is caused by the following: * Mental incapacity * Detention by civilian authorities * Early departure of a mobile unit due to operational commitments i. Army Regulation 600-85 (Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP)) dated 24 April 2006, provided a comprehensive alcohol and drug abuse prevention and control policies, procedures, and responsibilities for Soldiers for ASAP services. The ASAP is a command program that emphasizes readiness and personal responsibility. The ultimate decision regarding separation or retention of abusers is the responsibility of the Soldier's chain of command. Abuse of alcohol or the use of illicit drugs by military personnel is inconsistent with Army values and the standards of performance, discipline, and readiness necessary to accomplish the Army's mission. (1) Unit commanders must intervene early and refer all Soldiers suspected or identified as alcohol and/or drug abusers to the ASAP. The unit commander should recommend enrollment based on the Soldier's potential for continued military service in terms of professional skills, behavior, and potential for advancement. (2) ASAP participation is mandatory for all Soldiers who are command referred. Failure to attend a mandatory counseling session may constitute a violation of Article 86 (Absence Without Leave) of the UCMJ. (3) Alcohol and/or other drug abusers, and in some cases dependent alcohol users, may be enrolled in the ASAP when such enrollment is clinically recommended. Soldiers who fail to participate adequately in, or to respond successfully to, rehabilitation will be processed for administrative separation and not be provided another opportunity for rehabilitation except under the most extraordinary circumstances, as determined by the Clinical Director in consultation with the unit commander. (4) All Soldiers who are identified as drug abusers, without exception, will be referred to the ASAP counseling center for screening; be considered for disciplinary action under the UCMJ, as appropriate; and be processed for administrative separation in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. a. The applicant requests an upgrade to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, rather than an under other than honorable conditions, which is normally considered appropriate. The available evidence provides the applicant reenlisted in the USAR in January 2005 for 3 years and went on active-duty orders, mobilized in support of GWOT, in May 2006 as a SSG for the period under review. A statement of service provides they had 4 years, 11 months, and 25 days of creditable service [last calculated in 2002]. (1) Prior to being discharged the applicant was supported by their chain of command and underwent a 21-day rehabilitation treatment and the commander decided not to pursue UCMJ due to the applicant's substance abuse dependency. Notwithstanding the chain of command support and period of performance improvement, the applicant's efforts, they had additional series of AWOL incidents and other misconduct to include wrongful use of cocaine, false reporting to the local police department, and arrest. The commander preferred charges which resulted in the applicant voluntarily requested to be discharged in Lieu of Trial by Court- Martial and elected not to submit a statement on their behalf. In doing so, they would have waived the opportunity to appear before a court-martial and risk a felony conviction. They received a characterization of service of Under Other than Honorable Conditions. The applicant completed 1 year, 3 months, and 7 days of their 3-year contractual obligation. They served 6 months and 10 days of the 1-year active-duty orders. (2) The applicant submitted a statement on their behalf in which they apologized and asked for forgiveness for the dishonor they caused to the United States Army. They were afforded many opportunities to recover from their alcohol disease and addiction but struggled severely for the six months leading up to their separation. They stated they were proud to have served their country and accomplished so much, highlighting they were within 12 credits from completing their master's degree in counseling. The applicant requested their character outside of their substance abuse issues be considered for a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge in lieu of a UOTHC, stating their family would suffer greatly from a Chapter 10. (3) A medical and mental examination was not required for the voluntary discharge ILO trial by court-martial but could have been requested by the service member. b. Army Regulation 635-200 states a Chapter 10 is a voluntary discharge request in-lieu of trial by court-martial. 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 discharger if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record during the current enlistment. For 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. c. Published Department of Defense guidance indicates that the guidance is not intended to interfere or impede on the Board's statutory independence. The Board will determine the relative weight of the action that led to the discharge and whether it supports relief or not. In reaching its determination, the Board shall consider the applicant's petition, available records and/or submitted documents in support of the petition. 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/experiences: self-asserted MST, PTSD, and Depression; AHLTA documents evidence of head injury. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant self-asserted that MST, PTSD and Depression occurred during Army service. Head injury was also documented during service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant has a self-asserted BH experience, MST, which mitigates some of his misconduct. Given the association between MST and avoidant behavior, there is a nexus between his experience of MST and his multiple AWOLS. MST does not mitigate the remaining misconduct given that MST does not affect one's ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in association with the right. While the applicant has a history of a head injury, this injury occurred after his misconduct and, as such, cannot mitigate said misconduct. Applicant also self-asserts Depression which was more likely than not due to his Alcohol and Cocaine Induced Mood DOs, two conditions which also are not mitigating for his misconduct given that they are the consequence of substance abuse and are not primary mood disorders. There is no evidence of PTSD diagnosis in his military or VA medical records. After considering the applicant's entire record, it is the BH advisor's opinion that the totality of the applicant's misconduct outweighs any mitigation offered under liberal consideration. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. Based on liberally considering all the evidence before the Board, the ADRB determined that the experience outweighed the basis of separation. b. Response to Contention(s): The applicant did not make any contentions. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable, therefore voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and change the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. No change to the RE code. d. Rationale for Decision: The Board carefully considered the applicant's request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, a medical review, and published Department of Defense guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board found sufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors (Length, Quality, Combat) which mitigated the applicant's wrongful use of cocaine, stealing government property and dereliction of duty. In addition, the Board concurred that the applicant's self-asserted BH experience; MST does mitigate the applicant's AWOL as the association between MST and avoidant behavior, is a nexus between his experience of MST and multiple AWOLs. (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable, thus the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. (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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: No change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a 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 AR20210008331 1