IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 September 2022 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220000922 APPLICANT’S REQUEST: * upgrade of his under honorable conditions, general discharge, and * change to his narrative reason for separation APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * Two DD Forms 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States (U.S.)) in lieu of DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Records * Applicant Self-Authored Statement, undated * Memorandum, Unqualified Resignation, Page 2 only * Separation (Probationary), 11 April 2006 * Letter, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff (ODCS), G-1, 21 December 2006 * Three Self-Authored Letters to Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), undated * ADRB Case Report and Directive, 28 February 2013 and Letter, ADRB to applicant, 7 March 2013 * Veterans Affairs (VA) Form 21-0781a (Statement in Support of Claim for Service Connection for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Secondary to Personal Assault), 4 December 2019 * Table of Rated Disabilities * Outline ? Introduction - My Legacy and Career Highlights ? Before and After Making the Case and Possible effects of the Decision ? 10 year Plan ? Define Terms ? Conclusion * Self-Authored Handwritten Letter, undated * Self-Authored Letter, undated * Twelve Letters of Support FACTS: 1. Standard of Review. When arriving at its findings and making its determinations, the Board shall review the petition for requested relief independent from any previous petitions submitted to the ADRB or the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).? 2. The applicant states he disagrees with the ADRB findings in 2013. He has since been diagnosed with anxiety, depression, PTSD (non-combat) by a professional outside of the VA, who was unbiased and viewed the evidence correctly. Evidence he previously submitted, includes overwhelming evidence that he did nothing wrong and should receive an upgrade. His integrity was questioned when there were so many other people involved in what ultimately was decided regarding his military career. He does not believe he was treated fairly during the due process and believes a decision was made regardless of the evidence in his favor. a. After graduating from college in 1991, he decided to voluntarily serve his country and joined the U.S. Army. He decided to serve to take care of his family and to find a professional path. By 2003 after honorably serving for 8 years as an enlisted service member, he completed officer candidate school, and took an oath of office to become a commissioned officer. As he began to earn more duties and responsibilities through promotion and hard work, the Army's seven core values started to become more applicable than ever before. b. It was 7 months after his commission, that the traumatic stress of what would be the beginning of the end of his military career. For the first time in his career, he saw the ugly side of the military and how the Army's seven core values could be turned upside down on his head and be applied only to some rather than all. The traumatic impact of what happened to him 2003 began to be understood by him within the last 6 years (2013-Present). He has continued to deal with this traumatic event until this day. It is wrapped up in pain, embarrassment, devastation, paranoia, unrealized professional potential and growth, indecisive pattern of professional behavior, professional setback, anxiety, and personal problems with his health and relationships. c. Since being discharged from the military, the impact of his non-combat related PTSD has caused him: * denial of 10 years of service before being able to retire * 10 different full-time jobs * gained over 124 pounds * divorce * paranoia and anxiety about the traumatic event * not to trust systems in organizations intended to protect and help those that need it * he has become extremely defensive when he knows someone is trying to sabotage or undermine him * a poor quality of life * mental downslope on his outlook to succeed considering his age and choices * no intimacy with a woman since 2013 * bankruptcy due to losing earning potential as a Soldier on active duty and as a veteran * relives events over and over since it happened 3. Following enlisted service in the Regular Army, the applicant executed an oath of office and was appointed as a U.S. Army Reserve commissioned officer on 10 April 2003. The applicant's service records show: a. On 19 September 2003, the applicant completed and achieved course standards for the transportation officer basic course (TOBC). b. An officer record brief (ORB) shows on 22 September 2003, the applicant was assigned to 89th Transportation Company (TC), Fort Eustis, VA as a platoon leader. c. A DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) he received while assigned to the 89th TC, 6th Transportation Battalion, Fort Eustis, VA for period covering 22 September 2003 - 23 February 2004, shows in: (1) Part IVa (Army Values) - two “No” entries for honor and integrity (2) Part IVb (Leader Attributes, Skills, and Actions) - two “No” entries for conceptual (demonstrates sound judgement, critical/creative thinking, moral reasoning) and decision-making. (3) Part V (Performance and Potential Evaluation) (Rater): (a) Part Va (Evaluate the Rated Officer's Performance during the Rating Period and his/her Potential for Promotion), his promotion potential during this rating period was rated as “Unsatisfactory Performance, Do Not Promote.” (b) Part Vb (Comment on Specific Aspects of the Performance), states: “Unsatisfactory performance by a young officer. [Applicant] is not ready to advance to the next level. During this rating period, [Applicant] has made little improvements to his platoon and his professional development. This officer has had inappropriate conduct between himself and an enlisted soldier. Due to [Applicant’s] actions, he has demonstrated that he is irresponsible and not ready to lead soldiers. This officer has accomplished most missions tasked to him. [Applicant] was tasked to run two M16 ranges. His planning and execution of the ranges were executed to standard. [Applicant] was also tasked with the duty of OIC [officer in charge] for the Provost Marshall Action Force (PMAF). While serving as the PMAF OIC, the PMAF was alerted three times, and of the three alerts, only two were successful. At this time this officer has not succeeded at being a leader and should be watched closely when leading soldiers. Do not give this officer a position of greater responsibility. Continue to groom this lieutenant at the level he is now and what it means to be an Officer in the United States Army.” (4) Part VII (Senior Rater): (a) Part VIIa (Evaluate the Rated Officer's Promotion Potential to the Next Higher Grade), he was rated "Do Not Promote." (b) Part VIIb (Potential Compared with Officers Senior Rated in Same Grade), senior rater entered "Below Center of Mass Retain.” (c) Part VIIc (Comment on Performance/Potential), states: “[Applicant’s] job performance has been unsatisfactory. This officer is not ready to advance to any position with greater responsibility. [Applicant’s] inappropriate conduct with an enlisted soldier illustrates that this officer is not responsible when leading soldiers. Continue to groom this lieutenant at the level he is now until he knows what it means to be an officer in the United States Army.” d. An ORB shows on 24 February 2004 the applicant was assigned to 97th TC, Fort Eustis, VA as a platoon leader. e. On 16 March 2004, a legal review of an Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 investigation (unavailable for review) regarding allegations of harassment and fraternization against the applicant states: (1) The legal officer reviewed the AR 15-6 investigation into allegations that the applicant harassed and fraternized with Specialist (SPC) K__ J__. The investigation was legally insufficient because the greater weight of the evidence did not support the findings and the investigating officer's (IO) recommendation was not consistent with the finding that the applicant conducted himself inappropriately. (2) The IO found that "[Applicant] conducted himself in an inappropriate manner." However, the IO officer also found the applicant did not harass SPC J__, although the IO did find that the applicant's actions might be perceived as fraternization. (3) The finding that the applicant did not harass SPC J__ is contrary to the evidence provided by SPC J__, which is supported by statements of Sergeant (SGT) S__g, SGT S__l, Sergeant First Class (SFC) B__n, and First Sergeant (1SG) R__ (statements unavailable for review). (4) SPC J__ identifies several instances of inappropriate conduct, harassment and fraternization by the applicant. The most egregious example of harassment and fraternization occurred when the applicant made comments about dating a white girl in college and that SPC J__ reminded him of that girl. The applicant stated that he waited 2 years for that girl and that he would also wait for SPC J__. SPC J__ also reported that the applicant claimed to be attracted to her and asked if she would consider dating him and that these comments were made on a continual basis. SPC J__ also reported that the applicant called her at home at least eight times to discuss personal issues. Despite being advised by 1SG R__ of SPC J__’ discomfort, the applicant continued to contact her. There was no reason for the applicant to call SPC J__, as he was not a member of her chain of command. (5) The IO’s recommendation that the officer be transferred within the battalion and receive a letter of reprimand from the battalion commander based on the single substantiated allegation of inappropriate conduct is not appropriate in light of that finding. The approval authority may consider recommending a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), considering that the misconduct involved an officer's stated romantic interest in a junior enlisted Soldier. Such conduct undermines the officer's authority and integrity and that of the officer corp. (6) The legal officer recommended that the approval authority approve the IO’s findings with the following exceptions and substitutions inserted in block VIll of DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by an IO): (a) The applicant harassed SPC J__ by contacting her outside of duty hours, asking her if she would date him, inquiring about her personal status with a senior noncommissioned officer, and contacting her after he had been advised that the Soldier felt uncomfortable around him. (b) The applicant created a perception of fraternization by calling SPC J__ at home, calling her on her personal cell phone to discuss personal matters, and unnecessarily spending long periods of time with her in her office, as observed by SGT S__. (c) In addition, the legal officer recommended that the appointing authority forward the investigation to the Commander, 7th Transportation Group, by inserting the following language in the block VIII, DA Form 1574, "this investigation is forwarded to the Commander, 7th Transportation Group for consideration and action as may be appropriate." f. On 20 April 2004, the applicant’s battalion commander forwarded the AR 15-6 to the commanding general for consideration and recommended the applicant receive a GOMOR for his inappropriate conduct toward SPC J__. On 26 April 2004, the commanding general reviewed the AR 15-6 investigation. g. On 26 April 2004, Brigadier Generalissued the applicant a GOMOR. The GOMOR stated he was being reprimanded for his egregious misconduct and unprofessional behavior. On numerous occasions he harassed and conducted himself inappropriately toward a junior enlisted Soldier. He made unwarranted remarks of a personal and sexual nature to SPC J__. Further, he asked SPC J__ for dates on a continuous basis. He continued to harass SPC J__ even after the company 1SG spoke to him about his conduct. This misconduct violated Articles 92 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and was a blatant disregard for another Soldier's privacy and personal dignity. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR on 28 April 2004. h. On 26 May 2004, the applicant submitted his response to the GOMOR; he stated he fully agreed that as a commissioned officer, Soldier and husband, he had a responsibility to ensure through his actions that his character was never called into question. His ability to judge certain situations needed work and he was truly sorry that his actions presented the appearance that he had an improper relationship with an enlisted Soldier. (1) The applicant denied the allegations that he harassed SPC J__. He did not ask this Soldier for a date, nor did he ever make sexually inappropriate remarks to her. He implied that SPC J__ actually sought out guidance from him concerning her belief that several noncommissioned officers in her company were treating her inappropriately and harassing her. His conversations with SPC J__ were limited to how he thought she should deal with that situation. (2) The applicant asked that the GOMOR be withdrawn, or in the alternative, be issued directly. i. On 24, 25, and 27 May 2004, the applicant's chain of command provided input as to whether the GOMOR should be filed locally or in the applicant's official military personnel file (OMPF). The company, battalion, and group (brigade-level) commanders recommended filing the GOMOR in the OMPF. The battalion commander stated the applicant’s actions are inexcusable for an officer in the U.S. Army. The group (brigade- level) commander stated sexual harassment undermines the authority of an officer and is not in keeping with Army values. j. On 7 June 2004, after review of the applicant’s rebuttal, the GOMOR imposing official directed the GOMOR to be filed in the applicant's OMPF. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR filing decision on 6 July 2004. k. Effective 10 October 2004, the applicant was promoted to the rank of first lieutenant (1LT/O-2). l. A DA Form 67-9 (OER) he received while assigned to the 97th TC (Heavy Boat), Fort Eustis, VA for period covering 24 February -31 December 2004, shows in: (1) Part V (Performance and Potential Evaluation) (Rater): (a) Part Va (Evaluate the Rated Officer's Performance during the Rating Period and his/her Potential for Promotion), his promotion potential during this rating period was rated as “Outstanding Performance, Must Promote.” (b) Part Vb (Comment on Specific Aspects of the Performance), states in part: “[Applicant] performed in an absolutely superb manner during this rating period. [Applicant] displayed unquestionable loyalty, selfless service, and determination while assigned to my command. Immediately upon arrival to his platoon, he immersed himself in vessel operations, platoon administration, and maintenance.” … “[Applicant] successfully completed the Equal Opportunity [EO] course and was honored as the "most outstanding leader with the most valuable contributions." This is indicative of his character as a soldier and a leader. This officer must be given the most challenging assignments. [Applicant] has displayed to me that he has unlimited potential and he should be promoted to Captain and given a command upon completion of the Captains Career Course.” (2) Part VII (Senior Rater): (a) Part VIIa (Evaluate the Rated Officer's Promotion Potential to the Next Higher Grade), he was rated "Best Qualified." (b) Part VIIb (Potential Compared with Officers Senior Rated in Same Grade), No Box Check. (c) Part VIIc (Comment on Performance/Potential), states: “Stellar performance by a superb officer. [Applicant] ranks in the top 15% of all lieutenants I know. Mature beyond his years, [Applicant] has the right attributes to be successful. Dedicated and mission oriented, [Applicant] sustained programs and systems that allowed his platoon to flawlessly conduct five back to back USARSO [U.S. Army South] rotations which sailed over 100,000 nautical miles without incident. Limitless potential; promote to Captain and send to CLC3 [Combined Logistics Captain Career Course].” m. A DA Form 67-9 (OER) he received while assigned to the 97th TC (Heavy Boat), Fort Eustis, VA for period covering 1 January -15 April 2005, shows in: (1) Part V (Performance and Potential Evaluation) (Rater): (a) Part Va (Evaluate the Rated Officer's Performance during the Rating Period and his/her Potential for Promotion), his promotion potential during this rating period was rated as “Outstanding Performance, Must Promote.” (b) Part Vb (Comment on Specific Aspects of the Performance), states in part: “[Applicant] is my very best officer. He ranks in the top 10% of the Lieutenants that I have served with in my entire career. [Applicant] was hand selected to become my Executive Officer in January 2005 and he has done a tremendous job…Not only was [Applicant’s] professional work ethic outstanding, but his off duty achievements were commendable…[Applicant] has displayed to me that he has unlimited potential and he should be promoted to Captain and given a command upon completion of the Captains Career Course.” (2) Part VII (Senior Rater): (a) Part VIIa (Evaluate the Rated Officer's Promotion Potential to the Next Higher Grade), he was rated "Best Qualified." (b) Part VIIb (Potential Compared with Officers Senior Rated in Same Grade), No Box Check. (c) Part VIIc (Comment on Performance/Potential), states: “[Applicant] continues to perform in a superb manner. The numerous accomplishments of his platoon are evidence of his contributions. [Applicant] works hard to ensure mission completions. [Applicant] does not hesitate to provide assistance to those in need and to encourage trust through genuine interest in personal and professional problem areas. His potential to be a great leader is evident by his selection to coach the All Army Men's Basketball Team. Promote and send to CLC3.” n. On 8 September 2005, the applicant's battalion commander initiated a commander's inquiry into allegations of inappropriate conduct involving the applicant. o. An ORB shows on 19 September 2005 the applicant was assigned to 24th TC, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, Battalion Terminal, Fort Eustis, VA as a platoon leader. p. A memorandum for record, results of the 10th Transportation Battalion’s Commander’s Inquiry, dated 21 September 2005, states Second Lieutenant (2LT/O-1) C__ P__, 97th TC, made allegations that the applicant made comments, sexual in nature, to her over the telephone. The inquiring officer’s findings states: (1) There is insufficient evidence to find that there were inappropriate remarks made to 2LT P__ by the applicant at any time. 2LT P__ stated that on or about February 2005, she had a phone conversation with someone whose voice was muffled and throaty sounding, and through heavy breathing the caller stated that he was masturbating (Exhibit C, page 7). 2LT P__ stated that she knew it was the applicant for sure because his name and number showed up on her phone's caller ID (Exhibit C, page 9). Yet 2LT P__ stated that she was not sure if she had called the applicant, or if the applicant had called her (Exhibit C, Page 7). 2LT P__ stated that she told SFC S__ K. B__y and her roommate, Ms. M__ D__ about the phone call (Exhibit C, Page 8). SFC B__y stated that the day after the applicant supposedly made the phone call, 2LT P__ went looking for a house to buy with the applicant and the applicant's son (Exhibit H, page 2). Ms. D__ stated she overheard a conversation at her apartment wherein 2LT P__ tells the applicant "Stop that, that is gross." When Ms. D__ asked 2LT P__ what happened, 2LT P__ told her that she had been talking to the applicant, and he said that he was masturbating on the phone while talking to her (Exhibit O, page 1). This statement is contradictory to what 2LT P__ said, or 2LT P__ forgot to mention this as another incident of the applicant calling her and telling her he was masturbating. The applicant has denied ever calling 2LT P__ and telling her that he was masturbating while talking to her on the phone (Exhibit P, page 11). 2LT P__ also stated that the applicant had made remarks to her such as, she had a "ghetto ass," that she was "large but curvy," and that she had "a nice chest" (Exhibit C, page 4). The applicant denied making these comments and stated 2LT P__ made reference to herself having a "ghetto butt" and that she said she had always had it (Exhibit P, pages 11-12). 2LT P__’s witnesses all stated that the relationship between 2LT P__ and the applicant appeared professional in nature and they never saw the applicant sexually harass her (Exhibits D- G, I, J, L, page 1, and H, page 2). After the incident surrounding the phone call, the applicant and 2LT P__ continued to have what inquiring officer would call a friendly relationship that extended beyond normal duty. Captain (CPT) D__ has stated that the applicant and 2LT P__ appeared to be good friends (Exhibit I, page 1). 1LT F__ has stated that prior to his having knowledge of the incident between the applicant and 2LT P__, their relationship appeared friendly; the two would go to lunch together, and that they had gone to Busch Gardens together with an assigned cadet in June 2005 (Exhibit J, page 1). 2LT P__ has verified that she did in fact go to Busch Gardens with the applicant, his son, and an assigned cadet, and stated that the cadet was friends with the applicant and wanted him to go along. Plus, there would be no “alone” or unchaperoned time, and that you have more fun in groups (Exhibit Q, page 1). (2) The applicant stated that he went to the mall with 2LT P__ in June 2005 for the purpose of buying her a pair of shoes as compensation for her watching his dog while he went to go and coach the Army basketball team (Exhibit P, page 16). 2LT P__ verified that she accompanied the applicant to the mall, but she was not sure why he bought her the shoes, and she didn't argue about receiving the shoes because she did not want the conversation to lead elsewhere (Exhibit Q, pages 2 and 3). The applicant stated that he saw 2LT P__ on 1 or 2 September 2005, they discussed her giving him his dog back that she had been watching while he was away coaching the Army basketball team, and she gave him her new cell phone number (Exhibit P, page 4). 2LT P__ has stated that she did in fact give the applicant her new cell phone number, and that telling the applicant no was not an option (Exhibit Q, page 3). (3) The preponderance of evidence does not support the allegation of inappropriate remarks being made towards 2LT P__ by the applicant. 2LT P__ has made multiple examples of statements supposedly made by the applicant, and the applicant had categorically denied having made these statements. No witness could be found who had first-hand knowledge of the applicant having made inappropriate statements at any time towards 2LT P__. The issue comes down to an issue of "he said, she said," with no witnesses able to verify the statements. Finally, if 2LT P__ was so upset at the remarks that the applicant was making towards her, then why did she continue to have contact with him? Why did 2LT P__ not address the issue with her chain of command when the incidents supposedly happened? Her actions appear to be inconsistent with the actions of a person who has been a victim of sexual harassment. Therefore, the inquiring officer found that there was insufficient evidence that points to the applicant at any time making inappropriate remarks to 2LT P__. (4) There is insufficient evidence to find that there were threatening or malicious e­mails sent to 2LT P__ by the applicant at any time. (a) 2LT P__ stated she had received the phone call from the applicant in which he was masturbating, and the next day she received an e-mail from him. According to 2LT P__, the e-mail from the applicant stated that she was out of the circle of trust, that he would not mentor her anymore, or tell her what people said about her behind her back. In addition, the applicant sent her the e-mail because he was mad that she would not talk dirty to her [sic] on the telephone. (Exhibit A, page 6; Exhibit C, page 9). (b) The applicant admitted to sending an e-mail to 2LT P__ that stated she was out of the circle of trust, that he would not mentor her anymore, nor would he tell her what other people were saying about her. The applicant stated that the reason he told 2LT P__ this was because every time he told her what somebody had said about her, she would go and confront the person that had told the applicant something. He stated the e-mail was sent because he was finished trying to mentor her and that he did not want to deal with her issues anymore (Exhibit P, pages 12 and 13). 2LT P__ admitted that she does not have the e-mail, however she had [may have] shown it to SFC B__y or her roommate (Exhibit C, page 12). (c) SFC B__y stated that 2LT P__ showed her the e-mail from the applicant, but she could not remember what the content of the e-mail was (Exhibit H, page 1). (d) The preponderance of evidence does not support the allegation of threatening or malicious e-mails being sent by the applicant towards 2LT P__. Both parties agree that an e-mail was sent by the applicant to 2LT P__ that stated she was out of the circle of trust, that the applicant would no longer mentor 2LT P__, and that he would no longer tell her what other people were saying about her. The content of the e-mail itself does not appear to be malicious or threatening. However, the motivation for sending the e-mail differs. According to 2LT P__, the e-mail was sent because she would not talk dirty with the applicant on the phone. According to the applicant, the e-mail was sent because he was tired of 2LT P__ confronting people that had come to him with issues about 2LT P__, instead of 2LT P__ confronting the issues themselves. This issue comes down to an issue along the lines of "he said, she said," with no witnesses able to verify either the content of the e-mail or the motivation behind it. Therefore, the inquiring officer found that there was insufficient evidence that points to the applicant at any time sending malicious or threatening e-mails to 2LT P__. (5) There is no relevance to the applicant sending inappropriate e-mails to Chief Warrant Officer Two (CW2) L__'s wife in this inquiry. (a) CW2 L__ stated that his wife had received an e­mail from the applicant in August 2003 (Exhibit M, page 1 ). According to Mrs. L__, the e-mail from the applicant stated that he was glad that he had someone to talk to about problems he was having with his wife, that the applicant thought that Mrs. L__ was attractive, and that with her husband being gone, she may find herself in a situation with a guy making unwanted advances towards her, and that if she found herself in that situation, that he (the applicant) would be happy to take care of the situation (Exhibit K, pages 1-3). Mrs. L__ forwarded a copy of the e-mail to her husband, who notified his chain of command (Exhibit K, pages 3 and 4). The applicant was in TOBC at this time, and the TOBC chain of command instructed the applicant not to have any more contact with Mrs. L__ (Exhibit K, page 5; Exhibit M, page 1). (b) The applicant stated that he sent an e-mail to Mrs. L__ to let her know that he and his family appreciated her for helping his family to get transitioned after moving to Fort Eustis, and that if Mrs. L__ ever needed assistance with her children, that the applicant and his family would be more than willing to help (Exhibit P, page 1). The applicant then stated that he was pulled from class at TOBC and instructed by his commander (CPT P__) that he (the applicant) should stay away from Mrs. L__ because she was not comfortable around him (Exhibit P, page 2). After the applicant was instructed to stay away from Mrs. L__ he had no further contact with her (Exhibit K, page 6, Exhibit M, page 1, and Exhibit P, page 2). The contents of and motivation behind the applicant's e-mail to Mrs. L__ are uncertain. Whether or not the content of the e-mail was inappropriate is a matter of question, as is the motivation behind sending it. When you ask CW2 and Mrs. L__ what happened, you get one answer; when you ask the applicant what happened, you get a different answer. However, when the applicant was instructed to have no further contact with Mrs. L__, he complied fully. (c) The inquiring officer found that there was no relevance to the applicant sending inappropriate e-mails to CW2 L__'s wife on this inquiry. (6) There is insufficient evidence to find that the applicant violated any Army policy concerning sexual harassment. (a) When 2LT P__ was asked why she waited so long to come forward with the allegation of sexual harassment, 2LT P__ stated that she knew at the time that the applicant would be leaving to coach basketball, so out of sight, out of mind. 2LT P__ also stated that she is not a vindictive person. When 2LT P__ found out that the applicant was coming back to her company, and that they would be sharing an office, she felt she had to come forward at that time (Exhibit D, pages 13 and 14). (b) During the period from February and March 2005 when the claim of sexual harassment was to have occurred and September 2005 when 2LT P__ reported the incident, she continued to hang around with the applicant. As previously stated, 2LT P__ admitted to going house-hunting in March with the applicant, then going to Busch Gardens in June with the applicant, then in June going to the mall and receiving a pair of shoes from the applicant, and finally giving the applicant her new cell phone number in September, just before the filing of the sexual harassment complaint (Exhibit Q, pages 1-3). 2LT P__ simply did not act like a person who had been the victim of sexual harassment like she described. (c) The preponderance of evidence does not point to the applicant having violated Army policy concerning sexual harassment. As with the previous issues, the evidence here boils down to "he said, she said," with no physical evidence available, and no witnesses available to corroborate the claim of sexual harassment. Therefore, the inquiring officer found that there was insufficient evidence that points to the applicant violating any Army policy concerning sexual harassment. (7) In view of the above findings, the inquiring officer recommended the following actions be taken: (a) No punitive action be taken against the applicant. The inquiring officer would recommend that the applicant receive a counseling using the DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form), and that the basis of the counseling be that while the applicant's actions have not been cause for punitive action, his actions are making people around him, especially females, uncomfortable. As a school trained equal opportunity representative, the applicant should know that certain actions and types of behavior could be misconstrued and put a person into an unintended compromising position. (b) No punitive action be taken against 2LT P__. The inquiring officer would recommend that 2LT P__ receive a counseling using the DA Form 4856, and that the basis of the counseling be that when 2LT P__ feels that she has been the victim of sexual harassment, she has an obligation to step forward and make the chain of command aware of the incident. Additionally, she should be made aware that if she suspects someone is sexually harassing her, continuing to associate with the person who is sexually harassing her during off-duty hours and in a social setting will not deter the person from continuing to sexually harass her. Also, if 2LT P__ suspects that she is being sexually harassed, she needs to bring the incident up in a timely manner, not months after the incident occurred. Finally, the inquiring officer believed that 2LT P__ should speak with an equal opportunity representative to discuss methods for dealing with sexual harassment, and the processes available for addressing sexual harassment grievances. q. On 22 October 2005, a legal review of the commander's inquiry regarding allegations of sexual harassment against (Applicant), states: (1) There were no errors that would have an adverse effect on the substantive or procedural rights of the individuals concerned. The inquiring officer's findings have some foundation in the evidence and the recommendations are reasonably related to the findings. However, the legal officer recommended disapproval of the findings and recommendations and to forward the inquiry, through the chain of command, to the Commander, U.S. Army TC, Fort Eustis, VA. (2) The legal officer recommended disapproval of the findings and recommendations because there was sufficient evidence in the inquiry to warrant further proceedings to consider the allegations of sexual harassment against the applicant, especially when considering that the applicant was reprimanded in April 2004 for sexually harassing a female junior enlisted Soldier. Under these circumstances, further inquiry into the validity of the allegations was warranted. (3) The inquiring officer found that there was insufficient evidence to find that the applicant made inappropriate remarks to 2LT P__ and that there was insufficient evidence to find that the applicant sent threatening or malicious emails to 2LT P__. The inquiring officer also found that "there was no relevance to the applicant sending inappropriate emails to CW2 L__'s wife." (4) Although the findings pertaining to 2LT P__ are reasonable, they are not the only findings that can be drawn from the evidence contained in the inquiry. 2LT P__ reports that she was generally sexually harassed by the applicant. In particular, 2LT P__ was offended by a phone call during which the applicant allegedly claimed to be masturbating while talking to her on the phone. 2LT P__ discussed the incident with two other people, both of whom confirm that 2LT P__ discussed the incident of harassment with them at or near the time of the harassment. There is no evidence in the investigation indicating that she has a motivation to lie. (5) The credibility of 2LT P__' s allegations is also bolstered by her reluctance to report the harassment. 2LT P__ did not report the harassment at the time it occurred because she knew that the applicant would be leaving the company to coach basketball for the Army. 2LT P__ thought that with the applicant gone, the harassment would end without her having to cause trouble for the applicant. 2LT P__ only revealed the allegations of harassment after she was informed that the applicant was coming back to the company and that she would have to share an office with him and then, only after her company commander noticed that she appeared to be upset at the idea of sharing an office with the applicant. The company commander then made the decision to report the allegations to the battalion commander, resulting in this inquiry. (6) The allegations of CW2 L__ and his wife also support further proceedings to determine the validity of the allegations against the applicant. The inquiring officer’s statement that the L__’s allegations were not relevant to the allegations lodged by 2LT P__ is legally correct. The allegation that the applicant made inappropriate comments to CW2 L__'s wife by phone and email do not tend to prove or disprove any of 2LT P__'s allegations, especially considering that the L__’s allegations occurred almost 2 years prior to 2LT P__'s allegations. However, the L__’s allegations are material to 2LT P__'s allegations because both women allege some sort of sexual harassment. Because the L__’s allegations are related to 2LT P__'s allegations, they are material to the issue of whether the applicant has demonstrated an ongoing pattern of sexual harassment. (7) The applicant's prior reprimand for sexually harassing a junior enlisted Soldier is also material to this inquiry because that reprimand was for conduct that relates, or is similar to, the current allegations of sexual harassment against the applicant. (8) This inquiry contains credible evidence that indicates that two women may have been sexually harassed by the applicant or that he, a married man, otherwise acted inappropriately toward these two women. The women do not know each other. One woman is military, the other is civilian. Each of the women discussed the incidents of harassment with a third party at or near the time the incident occurred. There is no evidence indicating that either woman has a motivation to lie. Each of these factors gives some credibility to the allegations and combined with the prior substantiated allegations against the applicant, justify further and more in depth proceedings to determine the validity of the current allegations. (9) The allegations against the applicant must be forwarded, through the Commander, 7th Transportation Group, to the Commander, U.S. Army TC, Fort Eustis, as he has withheld disposition authority over all actions involving officers on Fort Eustis. The action may be forwarded with a recommendation for disposition or with a request for release of jurisdiction. (10) The legal officer recommended that the applicant’s commander review the evidence contained in the investigation and then forward the inquiry to the Commander, 7th Transportation Group, with his own findings and recommendations, based upon your review of the evidence. r. On 7 November 2005, the applicant’s commander thoroughly reviewed the findings of the inquiring officer. He disapproved the findings and recommendations of the inquiring officer. (1) The weight of the evidence suggests that the applicant did make inappropriate comments to 2LT P__ and that he did send malicious email messages to her. Moreover, the evidence further suggests that the applicant did send inappropriate email messages to Mr. L__ [Mr. L__’s wife] and that evidence is relevant to this inquiry despite the inquiring officer's finding otherwise. (2) The evidence against the applicant is credible and warrants action. Accordingly, his commander recommended a GOMOR be issued to the applicant for the misconduct substantiated by the commander's inquiry. s. On 8 November 2005, the applicant’s group (brigade-level) commander forwarded the commander’s inquiry to the commanding general for consideration and recommended the applicant receive a GOMOR for his inappropriate conduct toward 2LT P__. t. On 10 November 2005, Brigadier General M__ E. S__ issued the applicant a GOMOR. The GOMOR stated he was being reprimanded for making inappropriate and offensive sexual statements to a junior female officer. A commander's inquiry reveals that he, a married man, between February and September 2005 made sexual remarks to the officer and that he used sexual innuendo to inappropriately refer to the officer's physical traits. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR on 15 November 2005 and elected not to submit a statement on his behalf. u. On 16-18 November 2005, the applicant's chain of command provided input as to whether the GOMOR should be filed locally or in the applicant's OMPF. The company, battalion, and group (brigade-level) commanders recommended filing the GOMOR in the OMPF. The company commander stated this action if proven to have happened should stay on the applicant’s permanent file. The battalion commander stated the applicant’s behavior is unacceptable. The group (brigade-level) commander stated the applicant’s conduct is not consistent with the Army command policy and he has established a pattern of the nature. v. On 22 November 2005, after review of the applicant’s chain of command, the GOMOR imposing official directed the GOMOR to be filed in his OMPF. The applicant elected not to submit a rebuttal. w. Orders dated 28 February 2006, assigned the applicant to the U.S. Army Transition Point, Fort Eustis, VA effective 1 July 2006 for separation processing. x. An ORB shows on 21 March 2006 the applicant was assigned to 331st TC, Causeway Company, Fort Eustis, VA. y. Orders dated 13 April 2006, amended orders, dated 28 February 2006, changing his report date to 28 April 2006. z. On 28 April 2006, the applicant was discharged accordingly. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b, by reason of “Unacceptable Conduct” under honorable conditions (general). He completed 3 years and 19 days of net active service during this period. His DD Form 214 also shows he was awarded or authorized: * Marksman Marksmanship Badge with Grenade Bar * Sharpshooter Marksmanship Badge with Rifle Bar * Army Commendation Medal (2nd Award) * Army Achievement Medal * Army Good Conduct Medal (2nd Award) * National Defense Service Medal * Global War on Terrorism Service Medal * Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon * Army Service Ribbon * Overseas Service Ribbon * Driver and Mechanic Badge - Mechanic 4. The applicant in support of his application provides: a. Page 2 of a memorandum, unqualified resignation, undated, it states that he would not accept release from active duty in lieu of resignation and that his resignation was voluntary. b. Separation (Probationary), dated 11 April 2006, shows the deputy assistant secretary, Army Review Boards, approved the applicant’s elimination and directed that discharge would be completed within 14 days. c. Letter, ODCS, G-1, dated 21 December 2006, shows the applicant was thanked for his service as a former commissioned officer in the U.S. Army and invited to return to active service. d. Three self-authored letters to ADRB, undated, states: (1) He arrived at his first company on or about 14 October 2003 and reassigned by 30 January 2004. He did not receive an initial counseling from CPT J__ W__, company commander. Between 14 October 2003 and the time, he was being accused of sexual harassment the company was returning from Iraq. Most of the unit to include his accuser was on block leave between the time in question. The applicant was just getting to know his Soldiers, signing for equipment, learning his job, and getting his family in line with their new life. During the time he was accused of harassment, he was on quarters for 2 weeks, with severe strep and flu like symptoms, and the company was going on, day on day off and half day schedules. During his quarterly counseling, CPT W__ had no issues with his loyalty or integrity. However, during the investigation when no one knew him, his integrity came into question and was pursued as not trustworthy. At the first sergeant’s own admission, he did not counsel the applicant’s sexual harassment accuser. The junior enlisted Soldier became pregnant while her husband was in Korea and was allowed to separate from the Army. (2) When the inquiring officer submitted his finding and recommendations for allegations that the applicant made comments, sexual in nature, to 2LT P__ over the telephone, the overwhelming evidence was in the applicant’s favor, however he still received a GOMOR. e. Letter, ADRB, dated 7 March 2013, informed the applicant that he exhausted his appeals with the ADRB, and if he had any new evidence, he could submit an application to the ABCMR. f. VA Form 21-0781a, dated 4 December 2019, shows the applicant required help for depression, anxiety, agitation, lack of trust in authority, a breakup of a primary relationship, visits to a counseling clinic, family separation, and desperation in critical areas that impact life. g. A table of rated disabilities shows the applicant was service connected and awarded a 70 percent rating for PTSD with major depressive disorder on 4 December of an unknown year (illegible on the table). h. Introduction (My Legacy) and Career Highlights: When the applicant joined the military as an enlisted Soldier he wanted to secure a solid future for his family. After 2 years, he decided to be a leader of Soldiers as a commissioned officer in the U.S. Army, however he was not initially approved to be an officer. He heavily engaged in basketball in the service, and in 1999 he became the captain of the All Army men’s basketball team. In 1999, he also graduated with a master’s degree. In 2003, he was selected for OCS and graduated from the officer basic course. In 2004, he graduated from the equal employment opportunity course, was voted "most outstanding student" and received a coin from the commanding general. In 2006, he was promoted to the rank of CPT. i. Before and After Making the Case and Possible effects of the Decision: (1) Over 10 years of service, 6 tours of duty, he was promoted on 5 different occasions, received his master’s degree, became certified on computer repair and basic computer skills courses through distance learning, and increased his family size. (2) The effects of being falsely accused may lead to defamation, divorce, grief and sorrow, guilt and shame, fear and anxiety, and depression. j. The applicant’s 10 year plan included retirement from service which turned into a 6 month plan and an early exit from service in the military. k. Self-authored handwritten letter, undated, states he has never engaged in or had a need to sexually harass anyone under any circumstance. He categorially denies what he was accused of. l. Self-authored letter, undated, states as a direct result of poor leadership, he literally found himself jobless, homeless, in the initial phases of a divorce, in the initial stages of filing a chapter 7 bankruptcy, mentally, physically, and psychologically wore down from the constant challenge of having to climb unnecessary obstacles. He left active duty and for the first time in his life, he felt defeated. He is grateful to those Soldiers he met that stand by him during very beginning states of his attempts to begin to heal from this injustice. m. Twelve Letters of Support that state: (1) The applicant is dedicated to his family, committed to his occupation, and remains steadfast in his belief in God and country. He possesses a level of mental and physical endurance to accomplish any mission. He exudes a confidence and demeanor indicative of a true professional. The applicant is very supportive, he counseled and mentored many, and was sought out for guidance. He is well known throughout their professional community to be a caring and dependable person. He is a confidant and a person of great integrity. (2) His ex-wife has known him for over 25 years, 18 of which they were married. She can confirm that he is a man of great honesty, commitment and compassion for all. He is extremely dedicated to the children they share. Her understanding was somewhat limited regarding the stress he was under at that time because he never brought his work or issues home. For the longest time, at least 3 years after his separation from service, he divulged to her all of the details regarding what he went through at Fort Eustis. What she vividly recalls, is a young lady calling the house to speak with him. After he got off, she remembers him saying, she could no longer do whatever she was planning on doing regarding how she was being treated in the company. His ex-wife was a little concerned with that situation because he just assigned to the company, and hadn't learned his job, let alone one particular person he wasn't in charge of. On the other hand, knowing how situations in the military can get twisted around based on someone else's perception, whether it be service members or dependents, she suggested that he needed to be careful, and he said he would and they left it at that. His ex-wife believes he was not treated fairly in these instances for this reason alone. The applicant has way too much pride in himself and his abilities to harbor lies or wrongdoing over a long period of time. In other words, if he did do something, he would have admitted it to her by now. He is the type of person that would rather tell you the truth and see your reaction than continue a lie and the perception it creates for others to see and continue to hide behind that. She has re-married and has nothing to gain for supporting him in his efforts to clear his name. 5. Clemency guidance to the Boards for Correction of Military/Navy Records (BCM/NR) does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority to ensure each case will be assessed on its own merits. In determining whether to grant relief BCM/NRs shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment. This includes consideration of changes in policy, whereby a service member under the same circumstances today would reasonably be expected to receive a more favorable outcome. a. The applicant requests an upgrade and change to his narrative reason for separation. b. His record shows he received numerous awards for his accomplishments in the military and the highest rank he held was 1LT/O-2. After 3 years of service as a commissioned officer, he received a general under honorable conditions discharge for unacceptable conduct. c. In regard to his PTSD. (1) The Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provides guidance that Boards are to give liberal consideration to veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on mental health conditions, Traumatic Brain Injury, PTSD, sexual harassment and sexual assault. The veteran’s testimony alone, oral or written, may establish the existence of a condition or experience, that the condition or experience existed during or was aggravated by military service, and that the condition or experience excuses or mitigates the discharge. (2) Boards are to give liberal consideration to veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part of mental health conditions, including PTSD. The veteran’s testimony alone, oral or written, may establish the existence of a condition or experience, that the condition or experience existed during or was aggravated by military service, and that the condition or experience excuses or mitigates the discharge. 6. Published guidance to the BCM/NRs clearly 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. 7. MEDICAL REVIEW: The Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting documents and the applicant’s medical records in the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) and Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) and made the following findings and recommendations: While the applicant is service connected for PTSD, the non-VA evaluation is absent for clarification and not supported by the available documentation. Specifically, the suggested trauma within VA notes, in-service accusations and separation, do not meet Criterion A requiring exposure to death, threatened death, actual or threated serious injury, or actual or threatened sexual violence. Moreover, the applicant’s documented symptoms, and origins of, do not meet multiple required symptom Criteria. Lastly, the applicant does not meet Criterion G; he is functioning well outside of his marriage which is related to infidelity and difference of opinions rather than his military separation. The available medical records support the VA diagnosed Adjustment Disorder; any listing of PTSD in the VA record began once the applicant was service connected rather than a VA diagnosed condition. Nonetheless, even if the service-connected PTSD is applied, sexual harassment and related misconduct are not a progression or sequela of trauma. Moreover, if the trauma relates to his separation, the trauma is post-misconduct and, thus, did not influence the misconduct. Accordingly, there is no medical mitigation. a. The applicant was discharged on 28 April 2006 under AR 600-8-24, Para 4-2b, Unacceptable Conduct, with a General characterization. The basis for separation was a second GOMOR in September 2005 for making inappropriate and offensive sexual statements to a junior female Officer. The inquiry revealed the applicant, a married man, used sexual innuendo to inappropriately refer to the Officer’s physical trait/s. Additionally, the applicant sent malicious email messages to the junior Officer, sent inappropriate email messages to Mr. L., and sexual harassed a civilian female. The first GOMOR in April 2004 related to egregious misconduct and unprofessional behavior in 2003. Specifically, on numerous occasions he harassed and conducted himself inappropriately toward a junior Enlisted Soldier making unwanted remarks of a personal and sexual nature, asking for dates on a continuous basis, continuing even after a 1SG spoke with him about his misconduct, and blatantly disregarding another Soldier’s privacy and personal dignity. The applicant is requesting an Honorable discharge with change in narrative reason for separation asserting he has been diagnosed with anxiety, depression, and non-combat PTSD by a civilian, noting this was the only way to obtain an unbiased opinion, related to his separation to include seeing “the ugly side of the military.” Additionally, the applicant contends the evidence would reveal he did not do anything wrong and was treated unfairly as the decision was made regardless of the evidence. b. The applicant previously applied to the ADRB in 2012 asserting injustices. The Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable, denying relief. c. The applicant’s active-duty electronic medical records include a February 2006 PCM appointment in which he reported depressive affect due to “disappointment and frustration.” The PCM wrote a script for an anti-depressant and referred the applicant to behavioral health. It is unclear if the applicant picked up the script as refills were not used. Additionally, records are void of behavioral health appointments. d. The applicant is 70% service connected for PTSD; exam unavailable for clarification. In June 2010, the applicant requested housing assistance; however, the applicant was able to obtain housing on his own. In May 2011, the applicant requested housing assistance, denying mental health symptoms and focusing on medical issues. In follow up, the program noted the applicant may not be eligible as he had income from unemployment, VA service connection, and part-time job; the applicant stated he had been substitute teaching for most of the academic year. The applicant was able to secure housing on his own. e. In February 2013, the applicant requested behavioral health series due to “unresolved issues with his military discharge.” The applicant noted his wife divorced him in 2005 due to a martial affair on his part. He reported working fulltime at the VA in the Logistic Department and previously with the VA Police. The applicant noted a pending ARBA application. The provider diagnosed an Adjustment Disorder related to difficulty adjusting to stressors to include sexual harassment accusations and loss of military career. The applicant attended one follow up reporting improvement. f. In August 2016, the applicant requested housing resources noting he had to leave his family related to “domestic issues.” In July 2017, the applicant requested an assessment noting anxiety and depression had worsened over the last few years, he did not follow up. g. In December 2019, the applicant requested marital therapy. In January 2020, the applicant reported improvement as he was service connected for PTSD, had his entire student loan forgiven, had a job offer, and a pending a separate job interview. The provider diagnosed an Adjustment Disorder. In March, the applicant reported ongoing improvement outside of his marital difficulties, but wife did not want to engage in marital therapy. The provider lists PTSD; however, listed per service connection rather than provider diagnosis. In May, the applicant reported his wife left and history of infidelity over the course of their marriage. In June, the applicant reported personal events and external pressures requesting help to decrease stress levels. The applicant was working as a Transportation Assistant for Joint Base San Antonio. The applicant reported previous legal issues for domestic abuse; however, he asserted he was protecting himself. Additionally, he was arrested for shoplifting; however, he asserted he was innocent. The provider listed PTSD; however, listed per service connection rather than provider diagnosis. The applicant did not return and in August, reported improvement with no need for treatment. h. In July 2021, the applicant reported his in-service experience of people not wanting him to do well no matter how hard he worked was being repeated in his family. The applicant did not engage in treatment. i. Kurta Questions (1) Does the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? (a) YES. The applicant is service connected for PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? (a) UNKNOWN. The Compensation and Pension (C&P) exam is absent for clarification. Available medical records do not support a diagnosis of PTSD, rather the VA diagnosed adjustment disorder. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? (a) NO. Even if the PTSD diagnosis is applied blindly, sexual harassment and related misconduct are not a progression or sequela of trauma. Moreover, the reported in-service difficulties related to events post-misconduct. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? (a) NO. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant's record of service, documents submitted in support of the petition and executed a comprehensive and standard review based on law, policy and regulation, and published Department of Defense guidance for liberal and clemency determinations requests for upgrade of his characterization of service. Upon review of the applicant’s petition, available military records and medical review, the Board concurred with the medical opinion finding insufficient evidence of in-service mitigation to overcome the misconduct. The Board noted that even if the PTSD diagnosis is applied blindly, sexual harassment and related misconduct are not a progression or sequela of trauma. Evidence in the record do not support a diagnosis of PTSD, rather the VA diagnosed adjustment disorder. 2. The applicant was discharged for Unacceptable Conduct” and was provided an under honorable conditions (General) characterization of service. Furthermore, based on the preponderance of evidence the Board determined that the narrative reason was not in error or unjust. The Board agreed that the applicant's discharge characterization is warranted as he did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel to receive an Honorable discharge. Therefore, relief was denied. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING X X X DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, United States Code, section 1556 provides the Secretary of the Army shall ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) is provided a copy of all correspondence and communications, including summaries of verbal communications, with any agencies or persons external to agency or board, or a member of the staff of the agency or Board, that directly pertains to or has material effect on the applicant's case, except as authorized by statute. 2. AR 635-5 (Separation Documents) in effect at the time, prescribed the separation documents that must be prepared for Soldiers on retirement, discharge, release from active duty service, or control of the Active Army. It established standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214. It states for: a. Block 26 (Separation Code) obtain correct entry from AR 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes), which provides the corresponding SPD code for the regulatory authority and reason for separation. b. Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation), entry is based on regulatory or other authority and can be checked against Table B-1, AR 635-5-1. 3. AR 635-5-1 (SPD Codes), in effect at the time, prescribed the specific authorities (statutory or other directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies SPD code "JNC" as the appropriate code to assign officers who are discharged under the provisions of AR 600- 8-24, paragraph 4-2b, Unacceptable Conduct. 4. AR 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges) in effect at the time, prescribed officer transfers from active duty to the Reserve Component and discharge functions for all officers on active duty for 30 days or more. a. Paragraph 1-21 (Types of Administrative Discharge/Character of Service) stated characterization of service was predicated on the officer's behavior and performance while a member of the Army and were normally based on a pattern of behavior rather than an isolated incident. (1) Paragraph 1-21a (Honorable characterization of service) stated an officer will normally receive an honorable characterization of service when the quality of the officer’s service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for an officer. (2) Paragraph 1-21b (Under Honorable Conditions characterization of service). stated an officer will normally receive an under honorable conditions characterization of service when the officer’s military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A separation under honorable conditions was normally appropriate when an officer - (a) Submits an unqualified resignation or a request for release from active duty under circumstances involving misconduct. (b) Is separated based on misconduct, including misconduct for which punishment was imposed, which renders the officer unsuitable for further service, unless an under other than honorable conditions separation is appropriate. (c) Is discharged for physical disability resulting from intentional misconduct or willful neglect, or which was incurred during a period of unauthorized absence. b. Chapter 4 (Eliminations) stated officers were permitted to serve in the Army because of the special trust and confidence the President and the nation had placed in the officer's patriotism, valor, fidelity, and competence; when an officer did not or could not maintain those standards, he/she were to be separated. (1) Paragraph 4-2 (Reasons for elimination) listed reasons why an officer would be considered for elimination; subparagraph b (Misconduct, Moral or Professional Dereliction, or in the Interests of National Security) included acts of personal misconduct and conduct unbecoming an officer among the reasons for elimination. c. Paragraph 4-24 (Rules for processing an option that an officer elects while elimination action is pending). (1) An officer identified for elimination may, at any time during or prior to the final action in the elimination case, elect one of the following options (as appropriate): * Submit a resignation in lieu of elimination * Request discharge in lieu of elimination (Regular Army officer only * Apply for retirement in lieu of elimination if otherwise eligible (2) When an option is elected, elimination proceedings will be suspended pending final action on the option elected by the officer. 5. On 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service. 6. On 25 August 2017, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to DRBs and BCM/NRs when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharges due in whole or in part to: mental health conditions, including PTSD; Traumatic Brain Injury; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Boards are to give liberal consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part to those conditions or experiences. The guidance further describes evidence sources and criteria and requires Boards to consider the conditions or experiences presented in evidence as potential mitigation for misconduct that led to the discharge. 7. On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military DRBs and BCM/NRs regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the type of court-martial. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court- martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice. a. This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, BCM/NRs shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment. b. Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses or similar benefits that might have been received if the original discharge had been for the revised reason or had the upgraded service characterization. 8. Section 1556 of Title 10, United States Code, requires the Secretary of the Army to ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) be provided with a copy of any correspondence and communications (including summaries of verbal communications) to or from the Agency with anyone outside the Agency that directly pertains to or has material effect on the applicant's case, except as authorized by statute. ARBA medical advisory opinions and reviews are authored by ARBA civilian and military medical and behavioral health professionals and are therefore internal agency work product. Accordingly, ARBA does not routinely provide copies of ARBA Medical Office recommendations, opinions (including advisory opinions), and reviews to Army Board for Correction of Military Records applicants (and/or their counsel) prior to adjudication. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20220000922 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1