IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 April 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220010305 APPLICANT REQUESTS: through counsel, the applicant requests, reconsideration of his previous request: •To change his Character of Service to Honorable •Correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from ActiveDuty), for the period ending 14 February 2013, to upgrade his discharge andchange Block 26 (Separation Code), Block 27 (Reentry Code), and Block 28(Narrative Reason for Separation) to show "Secretarial Authority" •To update his DA Form 5016 (Chronological Statement of Retirement Points) toshow 20 years, 5 months, and 2 days •Issuance of a 20-Year Letter •Consideration under the Hagel Memorandum •A personal appearance before the Board APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: •DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)•Statement of , 14 July 2022•DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of the United States), 20 September 1989•Excerpt of Army National Guard (ARNG) Current Annual Statement, period covering 20 September 1989 to 14 February 2013•ARNG Current Annual Statement, period covering 14 January 1998 to27 December 1989•Excerpt of Government Accountability Office (GAO) Highlights article "Army Reserve Soldiers Mobilized to Active Duty Experienced Significant Pay Problems", August 2004•Excerpt of Joint Federal Travel Regulation/ Joint Travel Regulation T4020, Change 229/483, 1 January 2006•Excerpt of Army Times article "New Deployment Orders for 18,000 Soldiers", 14 July 2006•Travel Voucher Summary, prepared on 13 June 2008•U.S. Army Transportation Center and School and Fort Eustis Memorandum, Subject: Assumption of General Court-Martial Convening Authority ConcerningSurface Deployment and Distribution Command (SDDC) Cases Investigated by the Temporary Change of Station Task Force, 21 August 2008 •Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) letter, Subject: Investigation, 22 October 2008•Orders Number A-03-907016 issued by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), 4 March 2009•DD Form 214, 30 March 2009•Orders Number A-03-907016A01 issued by HRC, 10 September 2009•Petition for Grant of Review in the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces, 4 November 2009•Request for Final Action, 4 November 2009•Statement of , 7 December 2009•Statement of , 7 December 2009•Orders Number A-03-907016A02 issued by HRC, 17 February 2010•Statement of , 14 June 2010•General Court-Martial Order Number 7 issued by the U.S. Army Transportation School and Fort Eustis, 30 June 2010•Statement of , 16 July 2010•Casualty Assistant Officer training certificate of completion, period covering18 August 2010 to 19 August 2010•Orders Number A-03-907016A05 issued by HRC, 19 October 2010•SF 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care), 11 February 2011•VA letter, 9 March 2011•Orders Number A-03-907016A06 issued by HRC, 23 March 2011•Warrior Screening Matrix for Warrior Transition Unit (WTU), 8 June 2011•Orders Number A-09-120043 issued by HRC, 13 September 2011•Excerpt of Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), 13 September 2011•U.S. Army Medical Department Activity Memorandum, Subject: Advised of Right to Counsel, 12 December 2011•Joint Department of Defense/VA Disability Evaluation Pilot Referral,9 December 2011•Orders Number A-09-120043A01 issued by HRC, 13 March 2012•U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals (USACCA) Decision, 29 March 2012•Advice as to Appellate Rights, 4 April 2012•U.S. Army Legal Services Agency, USACCA letter, Subject: Notification of USACCA Decision, 4 April 2012•Orders Number 045-0159 issued by U.S. Army Installation Management Command, Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Knox, 14 February 2013•DD Form 214, 14 February 2013•Disabled American Veterans letter, 10 October 2013•Disabled American Veterans letter, 23 October 2013 •VA letter, 29 October 2013•Secretary of Defense Memorandum, Subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD),3 September 2014•Self-Authored Statement, Subject: Exception to Policy (ETP) for Household Goods (HHG) storage, 5 May 2015•Statement of , 20 October 2015•Excerpt of VA medical notes, 2 February 2016•DFAS letter, Subject: Statement of Non-Pay Status, 18 February 2016•Self-Authored Statement, 8 March 2017•Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Memorandum, Subject: Clarifying Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans for Modification of their Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment,25 August 2017•DA Form 5016, 2 November 2020•Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) letter, 11 March 2021•ABCMR Record of Proceedings (ROP) for AR20170007660, 15 January 2020•Excerpt of medical notes, 12 October 2021•Excerpt of medical notes, covering period 5 April 2022 to 6 April 2022•Self-authored Statement, 14 July 2022•News article "Fast action may have saved life", undated FACTS: 1.Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in theprevious consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket NumberAR20170007660, dated15 January 2020. 2.The applicant requests through counsel: a.The applicant was commissioned in the Army in August 1995. He was underinvestigation and charged with violating Articles 81, 107, 121, and 132, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). His conviction was affirmed by the USACCA and his appeal to USACCA was denied. On his DD Form 214, ending on 14 February 2013, his discharge was incorrectly reflected as Bad Conduct. His previous request under Docket Number AR20170007660, dated 15 January 2020, was denied. He requests reconsideration based on new evidence and new arguments; to include his DA Form 5016, a copy of a DFAS memorandum, a GAO study, a declaration by the applicant, and his VA records. b.The applicant's DD Form 214 reflects his character of service as Bad Conductdue to his court-martial. His rank/grade at the time of his court-martial was captain (CPT)/O-3; therefore, he could not have been sentenced to a Bad Conduct discharge since this is reserved for Enlisted personnel. His sentence was adjudicated on 9 December 2009 and he was found guilty and sentenced to forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 5 months confinement, and a dismissal from service. c.DA Form 5016 and 20-Year Letter. The applicant's form shows he completed16 years, 6 months, and 26 days of qualifying time for retirement purposes. His last form covered period 20 September 2009 to 10 December 2009. However, he has more active time not reflected. He was ordered to active duty from 31 March 2009 to 14 February 2013; his discharge date. Based on his additional active-duty service, he had to reflect 20 years, 5 months, and 2 days of qualifying time for retirement. Title 10, USC, section 12731 provides that a Reserve member who has completed 20 years of qualifying service is entitled to a Reserve retirement. Therefore, he is entitled to a 20-Year Letter to affirm his eligibility for a Reserve retirement. d.There are additional factor that mitigate the misconduct and favors grantingclemency. (1)DFAS investigated the applicant's alleged fraud, larceny and deprivation ofGovernment funds and determined that he was unaware that entire mortgage payments were not reimbursable when he claimed them. The Examiner noted that other servicemembers have made similar claims under this false impression. It was determined that the Contingency Travel office, Indianapolis failed to process his claims correctly initially; which contributed to his assumption that his claims were valid. He has been cooperative in providing documents to audit his claims and has done nothing in his communication to suspect dishonesty. (2)The GAO conducted a study that determined that Reservist mobilized insupport of the Global War on Terror experienced significant pay problems. The processes and automated systems relied on were error prone, cumbersome, and complex. Like so many others, the applicant was unsure of how to navigate Army finance policies. The study and its findings provide additional mitigation since the applicant was accused of financial crimes. The study emphasized the overall confusing state of Army finance policy. (3)The letters of support attest to the applicant's overall good character while inthe service. These letters were drafted after the court-martial and each author maintains their support of the applicant. (4)In a self-authored statement, the applicant outlined his life post-service inwhich he has contributed to his community despite the consequences of his dismissal on his daily life. In the 8 years since he left the Army, he has demonstrated that his actions were not reflective of his overall character as an officer or person and should be rewarded in the form of clemency. (5)The applicant was diagnosed with service-connected PTSD, Traumatic BrainInjury (TBI) depression, and a variety of other medical conditions. At the time of his misconduct, he was suffering from behavioral health conditions; which qualified him for consideration and relief under the Hagel memorandum, dated 3 September 2014. e.The Hagel memorandum and clarifying guidance issued by the Under Secretaryof Defense for Personnel and Readiness on 25 August 2017, provided that liberal consideration would 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. The clarifying guidance provided that requests for discharge relief typically involve 4 questions and in the applicant's case, all 4 questions can be answered in the affirmative. (1)Did the Veteran have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigatethe discharge? The evidence demonstrates that the applicant was diagnosed with and/or experienced symptoms of various conditions while still in the Army, including, but not limited to PTSD, TBI, and depression, The evidence shows that some of the conditions were service-connected and may excuse the alleged misconduct and the discharge. (2)Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service? The evidence indicates that some of the applicant's medical and behavioral health conditions were service-connected. (3)Does that condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? The evidence demonstrates that the applicant's conditions actually excuse or mitigate his alleged misconduct and his discharge. He was diagnosed with depression, PTSD, and TBI. The medical evidence shows that he suffered from these conditions at the time of the misconduct and therefore actually excuse or mitigate his alleged conduct and his discharge. (4)Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge? The totality of theevidence demonstrates that the applicant's medical conditions outweigh his discharge. The medical evidence indicates that his symptomology directly caused or contributed to his actions and impacted his thought process. The fact his behavioral health conditions either contributed to or caused his behavior unquestionably outweighs his conduct and outweighs the discharge. f.Based on the evidence provided, it would be unjust for the applicant's dismissal toremain unchanged. For all of the above-listed reasons, justice requires that he be granted the relief requested. 3.The applicant's service record shows: a.On 28 December 1989, having enlistment in a delayed entry program, theapplicant enlisted in the Regular Army. b.DD Form 214, ending on 13 January 1995, shows the applicant was honorablyreleased from active duty. (1)Block 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank) – Private. (2)Block 4b (Pay Grade) – E-1. (3)Block 6 (Reserve Obligation Term Date) – 19 September 1997. (4)Block 12a (Date Entered Active-Duty Service) – 28 December 1989. (5)Block 12c (Net Active Service This Period) – 5 years, 0 months, and 16 days. (6)Block 12f (Foreign Service) – 1 years, 9 months, and 24 days. (7)Block 18 (Remarks) – Period of delayed entry program from 28 December 1989 to 27 December 1989. Immediate reenlistments from 28 December 1989 to 11 December 1991, 12 December 1991 to 13 May 1993, and 14 May 1993 to 13 January 1995. (8)Block 26 (Separation Code) – LCC. (9)Block 27 (Reentry Code) – 3. (10)Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – Reduction in force. c.On 7 February 1995, the applicant enlisted in the ARNG for 3-years. d.Orders Number 148-179 issued by State of Kansas, Office of the AdjutantGeneral, Kansas National Guard, dated 1 August 1995, discharged the applicant from the ARNG in the rank of sergeant/E-5, effective 15 August 1995, and appointed him as second lieutenant (2LT) /O-1 in the ARNG, effective 16 August 1995. e.National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 337 (Oath of Office), dated 14 August 1995,shows the applicant was granted temporary Federal recognition as a 2LT/O-1 in the Kansas Army National Guard, effective 16 August 1995. f.Special Orders Number 154 AR issued by the NGB, dated 19 December 1995,granted the applicant Federal recognition in the ARNG, effective 16 August 1995 for his initial appointment. g.NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), ending on1 February 1998, shows the applicant was honorably released from the Kansas Army National Guard and transferred him to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Individual Ready Reserve). He completed 2 years, 5 months, and 17 days of net active service with 5 years and 16 days of prior active service. h.NGB Form 337 dated 2 February 1998, granted temporary Federal recognition asa 2LT/O-1 in the Georgia Army National Guard. i.Special Orders Number 166 AR issued by the NGB, dated 21 September 1998,withdrew Federal recognition in the ARNG, effective 1 February 1998 to transfer to the USAR. j.Orders Number M-10-100315 issued by the U.S. Total Army PersonnelCommand, dated 2 October 2001, ordered the applicant to active duty in support of Operation Noble Eagle, effective 1 October 2001, not to exceed 365 days. k.U.S. Total Army Personnel Command Memorandum, Subject: Notification ofPromotion Status, dated 26 March 2002, shows that an Army Reserve Components Mandatory Selection Board considered the applicant for promotion; however, he was not among the officers selected. l.Orders Number M-10-100315A01 issued by U.S. Total Army PersonnelCommand, dated 4 September 2002, amended Orders Number M-10-100315, dated 2 October 2001, to change the applicant's period of active duty from not to exceed 365 days to not to exceed 730 days. m.Orders Number C-01-300012 issued by U.S. Total Army Personnel Command,dated 2 January 2003, voluntarily reassigned the applicant from mobilization (MOB) Table of Distribution and Allowances (TDA)/Table of Organization and Equipment (TOE) FCWD1HXX to the USAR Control Group Reinforcement. n.Orders Number C-01-300326 issued by U.S. Total Army Personnel Command,dated 6 January 2003, reassigned the applicant from the USAR Control Group Reinforcement to a Troop Program Unit. o.Orders Number M-01-300041 issued by U.S. Total Army Personnel Command,dated 7 January 2003, ordered the applicant to active duty in support of Operation Noble Eagle, effective 23 December 2002, not to exceed 365 days. The Additional Instructions stated that the storage of Household Good (HHG) was authorized. p.Orders Number M-01-300041A01 issued by U.S. Total Army PersonnelCommand, dated 8 January 2003, amended Orders M-01-300041, dated 7 January 2003, to change the applicant's period of active duty from not to exceed 365 days to not to exceed 282 days. q.Orders Number A-08-300277 issued by U.S. Total Army Personnel Command,dated 11 August 2003, ordered the applicant to active duty for a Temporary Tour of Active Duty (TTAD) in support of Operation Noble Eagle, effective 1 October 2003 not to exceed 179 days. The Additional Instructions stated that the movement of HHG was not authorized. r.Orders Number C-03-405365 issued by HRC, dated 8 March 2004, voluntarilyreassigned the applicant from the 597th Transportation Company to the SDDC Operations Center. s.Orders Number A-03-402187 issued by HRC, dated 10 March 2004, ordered theapplicant to active duty to fulfill an active duty requirement in accordance with Contingency Operations Extended Active Duty Program from 28 March 20004 to 27 March 2006. The Additional Instructions stated to contact the nearest military installation, then the Transportation Office to ship HHG at the government expense. t.DD Form 214, ending on 27 March 2004, shows the applicant was honorablyreleased from active duty. (1)Block 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank) – CPT. (2)Block 4b (Pay Grade) – O-3. (3)Block 12a (Date Entered Active-Duty Service) – 1 October 2001. (4)Block 12c (Net Active Service This Period) – 2 years, 5 months, and 27 days. (5)Block 12d (Total Prior Active Service) – 5 years, 2 months, and 29 days. (6)Block 12e (Total Prior Inactive Service) – 6 years, 9 months, and 12 days. u.Orders Number A-03-402187A02 issued by HRC, dated 29 March 2004,amended Orders Number A-03-402187, dated 10 March 2004, changed the Pay Entry Basic Date (PEBD) of 20 September 1989 to the Initial Active Duty for Training (IATR) PEBD of 28 December 1989. v.Orders Number A-02-603374 issued by HRC, dated 9 February 2006, orderedthe applicant to Temporary Tour Active Duty (TTAD) in support of Operation Noble Eagle, effective 1 April 2006 not to exceed 365 days. The Additional Instructions stated that non temporary storage of HHG was authorized. w.DD Form 214, ending on 27 March 2006, shows the applicant was honorablyreleased from active duty. (1)Block 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank) – CPT. (2)Block 4b (Pay Grade) – O-3. (3)Block 12a (Date Entered Active Duty Service) – 28 March 2004. (4)Block 12c (Net Active Service This Period) – 2 years, 0 months, and 0 days. (5)Block 12d (Total Prior Active Service) – 7 years, 8 months, and 26 days. (6)Block 12e (Total Prior Inactive Service) – 6 years, 9 months, and 4 days. (7)Block 18 (Remarks) – Service in Kuwait from 14 November 2004 to 14 March 2005. w.Orders Number C-06-615033 issued by HRC, dated 5 June 2006, voluntarilyreassigned the applicant from the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) to the 597th U.S. Army Transportation Terminal Group with the gaining command as SDDC Operations Center, effective 1 April 2006. x.Orders Number A-12-631590 issued by HRC, dated 29 December 2006, orderedthe applicant to TTAD in support of Operation Noble Eagle, effective 1 April 2006 not to exceed 365 days. The Additional Instructions stated that the storage of HHG was authorized. y.Orders Number A-02-603374A01 issued by HRC, dated 4 April 2007, amendedOrders Number A-02-603374, dated 9 February 2006, to change the applicant's period of active duty from 365 days to IATR period of active duty of 1 year and to change the purpose from TTAD in support of Operation Noble Eagle to IATR purpose for Contingency Operation for Active Duty Operational Support (CO-ADOS). z.Orders Number A-12-631590A01 issued by HRC, dated 4 April 2007, amendedOrders Number A-12-631590, dated 29 December 2006, to change the applicant's period of active duty from 365 days to IATR period of active duty of 11 months and 30 days and to change the purpose from TTAD in support of Operation Noble Eagle to IATR purpose for CO-ADOS. aa. Orders Number M-02-800401 issued by HRC, dated 8 February 2008, ordered the applicant to active duty for partial mobilization in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, effective 31 March 2008 not to exceed 365 days. The Additional Instructions stated that the transportation of HHG was not authorized, but the storage of HHG was authorized. bb. DD Form 214, ending on 30 March 2008, shows the applicant was honorably released from active duty. (1)Block 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank) – CPT. (2)Block 4b (Pay Grade) – O-3. (3)Block 12a (Date Entered Active-Duty Service) – 1 April 2006. (4)Block 12c (Net Active Service This Period) – 2 years, 0 months, and 3 days. (5)Block 12d (Total Prior Active Service) – 9 years, 8 months, and 26 days. (6)Block 12e (Total Prior Inactive Service) – 6 years, 9 months, and 4 days. (7)Block 12f (Foreign Service) – 0 years, 5 months, and 20 days. (8)Block 26 (Separation Code) – MBK. (9)Block 27 (Reentry Code) – N/A. (10)Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – Completion of required activeservice. cc.Orders Number A-03-907016 issued by HRC, dated 4 March 2009, ordered theapplicant to active duty for UCMJ processing from 31 March 2009 to 25 September 2009 for 179 days. dd.Orders Number A-03-907016A01 issued by HRC, dated 10 September 2009,amended Orders Number A-03-907016, dated 4 March 2009, to change the applicant's period of active duty from 179 days with an end date of 25 September 2009 to a period of active duty for 358 days with an end date of 23 March 2010. The additional instructions stated that no per diem was authorized. ee. DA Form 4430 (Department of the Army Report of Result of Trial), dated 9 December 2009, outlined the applicant's general court-martial on 8 December 2009. (1)He was charged with the following offenses and entered the following pleafor each count: •Article 81 – Did conspire with Master Sergeant (MSG) and Major (MAJ) to commit larceny (Not guilty finding of guilty).•Article 81 - Did conspire with MSG and MAJ to commit against the U.S. (Not guilty finding of guilty)•Article 107 – Did sign false official statements between 1 April 2006 and 1 January 2008 (Not guilty finding of guilty).•Article 121 – Did between 1 April 2006 and 1 January 2008, steal money of a value over $500.00, the property of the U.S. (Not guilty finding of guilty)•Article 132 – Did between 1 April 2006 and 1 January 2008, present for payments claims against the U.S. in an amount greater than $500.00 which were false and fraudulent (Not guilty finding of guilty).•Article 132 – Did between 1 April 2006 and 1 January 2008, present for payments claims against the U.S. in an amount greater than $500.00 which were false and fraudulent (Not guilty finding of guilty). (2)He was found guilty and was sentenced to forfeit all pay and allowances,confinement for 5 months, and dismissal from service, effective 23 December 2009. ff. Orders Number A-03-907016A02 issued by HRC, dated 17 February 2010, amended Orders Number A-03-907016, dated 4 March 2009, to change the applicant's period of active duty from 358 days with an end date of 23 March 2010 to a period of active duty for 420 days with an end date of 24 March 2010. The additional instructions stated to forfeit all pay and allowances, to be confined for 5 months, and be dismissed from the service. No per diem was authorized. gg. General Court Martial Order Number 7 issued by Department of the Army, dated 30 June 2010, approved the sentence of confinement for 5 months and forfeiture of all pay and allowances would be executed. hh. Orders Number A-03-907016A05 issued by HRC, dated 19 October 2010, amended Orders Number A-03-907016, dated 4 March 2009, to change the applicant's period of active duty from 599 days with an end date of 19 November 2010 to a period of active duty for 778 days with an end date of 17 March 2011. ii.Orders Number A-03-907016A06 issued by HRC, dated 23 March 2011,amended Orders Number A-03-907016, dated 4 March 2009, to change the applicant's period of active duty from 778 days with an end date of 17 May 2011 to a period of active duty for 957 days with an end date of 12 November 2011. jj. Orders Number A-09-120043 issued by HRC, dated 13 September 2011, ordered the applicant to active duty for UCMJ processing from 13 November 2011 to 9 May 2012 for 179 days. The Additional Instructions stated he was relieved from his Reserve Component assignment on the day preceding the effective date and included in the active Army End Strength. The shipment of HHG was not authorized. kk. Orders Number A-09-120043A01 issued by HRC, dated 13 March 2012, amended Orders Number A-09-120043, dated 13 September 2011, to change the applicant's period of active duty from 179 days with an end date of 9 May 2012 to a period of active duty for 358 days with an end date of 4 November 2012. ll.General Court Martial Order Number 1 issued by Headquarters, Department ofthe Army (HQDA), dated 15 January 2013, through appellate actions, the USACCA affirmed the applicant's general court-martial findings and the sentence was approved by the convening authority on 29 March 2012. On 24 August 2012, his appeal was denied by the USACCA and his conviction was finalized. mm.DD Form 214, ending on 14 February 2013, shows the applicant wasdischarged from active duty for bad conduct. (1)Block 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank) – CPT. (2)Block 4b (Pay Grade) – O-3. (3)Block 12a (Date Entered Active-Duty Service) – 9 December 2009. (4)Block 12c (Net Active Service This Period) – 2 years, 10 months, and12 days. (5)Block 12d (Total Prior Active Service) – 12 years, 5 months, and 4 days. (6)Block 12e (Total Prior Inactive Service) – 7 years, 6 months, and 7 days. (7)Block 12f (Foreign Service) – 0 years, 5 months, and 20 days. (8)Block 18 (Remarks) – Excess leave of 913 days (creditable for all purposesexcept pay and allowances) from 17 August 2010 to 14 February 2013. Member entitled to no involuntary separation pay. (9)Block 25 (Separation Authority) – AR 600-8-24, Paragraph 5-17. (10)Block 26 (Separation Code) – JJD. (11)Block 27 (Reentry Code) – N/A. (12)Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – Court-martial. (13)Block 29 (Dates of Time Lost During This Period) – 9 December 2009 to2 April 2010. 4.The applicant provides: a.Excerpt of ARNG Current Annual Statement (proposed changes), period covering20 September 1989 to 14 February 2013, shows the applicant's retirement points: •109 Inactive Duty Training (IDT) Points •284 Extension Course Points •272 Membership Points •6259 Active-Duty Points •20 years, 5 months, and 2 days qualifying for retirement •6531 Total Points Creditable b.ARNG Current Annual Statement, period covering 14 January 1998 to27 December 1989, shows the applicant's retirement points: •2057 Active-Duty Points •2211 Total Career Points •2211 Total Points for Retired Pay •8 years, 0 months, and 12 days Creditable Service for Pay c.Excerpt of GAO Highlights article "Army Reserve Soldiers Mobilized to ActiveDuty Experienced Significant Pay Problems", dated August 2004, which discussed: (1)Why GAO Did This Study. In November 2003, the GAO highlightedsignificant pay problems experienced by ARNG Soldiers mobilized to active duty in support of the Global War on Terrorism and Homeland Security. GAO was asked to determine if controls used to pay mobilized Reserve Soldiers provided assurance that such payments were accurate and timely. GAO's audit used a case study approach to focus on controls over three key areas: processes, human capital, and automated systems. (2)What GAO Recommended. GAO reiterated 5 previous recommendations;including action to ensure that longer-term system improvement action include a complete reengineering of not only related automated systems, but also supporting processes and human capital practices. GAO's report included 15 new recommendations with 14 recommendations for immediate action to address weaknesses in the processes, human capital, and automated systems relied on to provide active duty pay, allowances, and related tax benefits for mobilized Army Reserve Soldiers. Department of Defense (DoD) agreed with the recommendations. (3)What GAO Found. The processes and automated systems relied on toprovide active duty pay, allowances, and tax benefits to mobilized Army Reserve Soldiers are so error-prone, cumbersome, and complex that neither DoD nor Army Reserve Soldiers themselves, could be reasonably assured of timely and accurate payments. Weaknesses in these areas resulted in pay problems; including over payments, and late and/or underpayments active duty pay and allowances at eight Army Reserve case study units. 332 of 348 Soldiers or 95 percent, who were audited at 8 case study units during an 18-month period from August 2002 to January 2004, had at least one pay problem. Many of the Soldiers had multiple problems associated with their active duty pay and allowance; which lingered unresolved for considerable lengths of time. Nearly all Soldiers began receiving their tax exemption benefit at least 1 month late. These pay issues often had profound adverse effects on individual Soldiers and their families. The article in its entirety is available in the supporting documents for the Board's review. d.Excerpt of JFTR/JTR T4020, Change 229/483, dated 1 January 2006, in whichthe applicant highlighted Paragraph T4005 (Appropriate Action for Failure to Follow JFTR/JTR Regulations) which stated that Command/Units are expected to appropriate disciplinary action when travelers or the Authorizing Official fails to follow the regulations. Disciplinary action should be for willful violations and may be in the form of oral or written counseling or non-judicial action. Action must not be through refusal to reimburse. e.Excerpt of Army Times article "New Deployment Orders for 18,000 Soldiers",dated 14 July 2006, which lists the applicant's name. f.Travel Voucher Summary, prepared on 13 June 2008, for Temporary Duty (TDY)from 31 March 2006 to 31 December 2007, in which the applicant was due $5,286.40. (total entitlement of $59,475.98 minus partial payments of $54,189.58). g.U.S. Army Transportation Center and School and Fort Eustis Memorandum,Subject: Assumption of General Court-Martial Convening Authority Concerning SDDC Cases Investigated by the Temporary Change of Station Task Force, dated 21 August 2008, in which Brigadier General (BG) assumed General Court-Martial Convening Authority for Soldier's under investigation for TDY fraud. The applicant's name was listed. h. DFAS letter, Subject: Investigation, dated 22 October 2008, in which DFAS Special Actions Department of Contingency Travel-Indianapolis investigated the applicant for fraud, larceny, and deprivation of Government funds. (1) The Examiner audited all of the applicant's claims to Contingency Travel-Indianapolis from March 2006 to May 2008 and no documents were suspected of being fraudulent. The applicant's debt status was primarily caused by reimbursement of monthly mortgage payments by Contingency Travel. Contingency Travel-Indianapolis reimbursed monthly mortgage payments instead of paying or reimbursing the interest of the monthly mortgage payments. (2) The Examiner concluded that (1) no fraudulent documents were found,(2)the applicant was placed into debt due to Contingency Travel, (3) the debt wasreduced by Contingency Travel, and (4) the debt was cleared or paid. The Examinerdetermined that the applicant was unaware that mortgage payments were notreimbursable when he submitted a claim. The Examiner was aware that other Soldierssubmitted similar claims under this false impression. There was a statute thatContingency Travel-Indianapolis had to process the applicant's claims correctly initially,which contributed to the applicant's assumption that his claims were valid. The applicantcooperated in providing necessary documents to audit his claims and the Examiner didnot detect dishonesty while communicating with the applicant. i.Petition for Grant of Review in the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces, dated 4 November 2009, in which the applicant requested that the Court review his conviction. j. Statement of , dated 7 December 2009, in which he stated that he has known the applicant since March 2003 while on the Crisis Action Team at the SDDC Operations Center, Fort Eustis and found him to be a hardworking, dedicated Officer who always managed to do the hard right versus the easy wrong. He would stay after hours to resolve a crisis instead of passing actions on to the next shift. He also served with the applicant when DSC-7 was deployed to Kuwait and Iraq. He served with unwavering commitment and was careful to ensure that his work was completed correctly the first time all the time. When approached by the applicant to write a statement, he did not hesitate because he knows the kind of man and Soldier the applicant is. He finds the notion that the applicant would do something that was not above board unlikely and he finds it sad that the Government is making more of an effort to ensure fair trials for terrorist, but not Soldiers like the applicant. k. Statement of , dated 7 December 2009, Commander of the 1192nd Deployment Distribution Support Battalion, in which he stated that he met the applicant in 2005 while serving with the SDDC Training, Readiness and Mobilization Section. Based on his observations, the applicant is a team player and hard worker willing to spend extra time to ensure the mission was complete. He is saddened by the applicant's legal issues and still supports him as both a Soldier and as a friend. l. Orders Number A-03-907016A02 issued by HRC, dated 17 February 2010, amended Orders Number A-03-907016, dated 4 March 2009, to change: (1) The applicant's period of active duty from 358 days with an end date of23 March 2010 to420 days with an end date of 24 May 2010. (2) The Additional Instructions: "No per diem authorized" to Additional Instructions: To forfeit all pay and allowances, to be confined for 5 months, and be dismissed from the service. No per diem authorized. Shipment of HHG not authorized. m. Statement of , dated 14 June 2010, in which he stated that he metthe applicant in December 2002 and was his rating officer while serving with the SDDC G-7 as a Crisis Action Team member from November 2003 to March 2006. The applicant performed his assignments in an efficient and effective manner. He freely shared his knowledge and skills with his peers and subordinates. He was respectful and considerate to staff and associates and focused on his responsibilities. He displayed good judgement, integrity, and honesty expected of a commissioned officer.n.Statement of , dated 16 July 2010, stated that the applicant served inhis Directorate while assigned as the G-7 representative for the SDDC Crisis Action Team from December 2002 to June 2007. He selected the applicant to be the Operations Officer of the Deployment Support Brigade that deployed to Kuwait and Iraq for 12 months. The applicant always performed his duties in an exemplary, professional manner. His positive attitude and team spirit was an asset to G-7 and the Command. He owned several rental properties and at no time did he believe that the applicant intentionally attempted to defraud the Government. He is certain that the applicant was never a legal residence of Virginia while serving on mobilization orders. He wholeheartedly supports the applicant's appeal of his conviction. The Army should not dismiss the applicant as he has proved to be a tremendous personnel asset to the Army at a time of war. The facts of the applicant's case do not support the action taken against him. o.Casualty Assistant Officer training certificate of completion, period covering18 August 2010 to 19 August 2010, certified that the applicant completed the U.S. Army Casualty Notification Officer course and Casualty Assistance Officer training course. p.SF 600, dated 11 February 2011, showing the applicant was seen for anelectrocardiogram reading. His medical conditions included PTSD and depression. q.VA letter, dated 9 March 2011, verified the applicant filed for compensation ofservice-connected disabilities to include PTSD. r.Warrior Screening Matrix for WTU, dated 8 June 2011, showed the applicant'srisk scores and recommended reassignment to a WTU for treatment: s.Excerpt of AR 600-8-24, dated 13 September 2011, in which the applicanthighlighted Paragraphs 1-19 to 1-23 that covered: •Action required prior to involuntary separation or under other than honorabledischarge of personnel with access to sensitive programs •Reassignment of an officer pending involuntary separation •Termination of appointment (active-duty list officer only) •Types of administrative discharge/character of service •Medical examination/retention t.U.S. Army Medical Department Activity Memorandum, Subject: Advised of Rightto Counsel, dated 12 December 2011, in which, the Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officer advised the applicant of his right to seek legal counsel upon his referral to the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB), u.Joint Department of Defense/VA Disability Evaluation Pilot Referral, dated9 December 2011, showing the applicant's MEB was processed through the DoD/VA for lumbar degenerative disc disease, cervical degenerative disc disease, and right foot arthropathy. v.USACCA Decision, dated 29 March 2012, affirmed the applicant's findings andsentence as approved by the Convening Authority. He was advised that he (1) could petition the USACCA within 60 days from the receipt of the decision, (2) had the right to a civilian lawyer, a detailed military lawyer, or both. w.Orders Number 045-0159 issued by the U.S. Army Installation ManagementCommand, Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Knox, dated 14 February 2013, reassigned the applicant to the Fort Knox Transition Center, effective 14 February 2013. The Additional Instructions stated that the shipment of HHG was not authorized. x.Disabled American Veterans letters, informed the applicant that his VA rated himat 100 percent for his service-connected disabilities to include 50 percent for PTSD. y. Secretary of Defense Memorandum, Subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming PTSD, dated 3 September 2014, states the ABCMR will fully and carefully consider every petition based on PTSD brought by each Veteran to include a comprehensive review of all materials and evidence provided by the petitioner. z. Self-Authored Statement, Subject: ETP for HHG storage, dated 5 May 2015, in which he requested an ETP to release his HHG to him and his family. In April 2010, he completed a permanent change of station to Fort Knox from Fort Eustis, Virginia, on travel orders issued by Fort Eustis. Upon his arrival, he was issued new orders for station. The was a rush to ship and store his HHG left at Fort Eustis and officials informed him that his orders would be amended to accommodate and store his HHG. He shipped his HHG months later, but his orders were never amended and this was the problem. He contacted at Fort Benning where his family's HHG were stored and was informed that approval was pending to release his HHG. He contacted at Fort Eustis for assistance and was directed to Mr. at Fort Eustis. He was then told to call Mr. in Washington, DC who verified that either the losing unit (Fort Eustis) or gaining unit (Fort Knox) had to amend one of the orders to add "storage of HHG authorized"; which would fix the issue. In September 2010, confirmed that his HHG shipment was converted to owners expense and the total cost had to be paid to the storage company prior to the release of his HHG. aa. Statement of , dated 20 October 2015, Commander of the 81st Regional Support Command, in which she stated that the applicant was mobilized with SDDC G-7 from December 2002 to December 2009 as the Crisis Action Team Chief, Unit Manager, and Operations Officer of the Deployment Support Brigade that deployed to Kuwait and Iraq. The applicant's professional duty performance was exemplary, and his positive attitude and team spirit was an asset. For those reasons, he sought to have the applicant assigned to the newly activated Army Reserve Deployment Support Command. He believes then and believes now that the applicant is a great asset to the Army. He is familiar with the applicant's general court-martial and strongly disagreed when it happened. He does not believe that the applicant was guilty and does not believe he was properly represented. What impressed him most about the applicant was the character and respect that he displayed for the system that did not support him when he needed it most. He strongly supported the applicant's discharge upgrade request to allow him to retire. bb. Excerpt of VA medical notes, dated 2 February 2016, noted that the applicant was treated at the Veterans Health Care System for chronic PTSD. cc. DFAS letter, Subject: Statement of Non-Pay Status, dated 18 February 2016, verified that the applicant's pay account was removed from the Army Military Pay System effective 24 October 2010 and remained in a non-pay status until his discharge on 14 February 2013. dd.Self-Authored Statement, dated 8 March 2017, in which the applicant requestedclemency from the ABCMR. He believes his punishment was disproportionate comparted to other Soldier's in the same unit that went through court-martial proceedings. All Soldier's in the unit were allowed to discharge and either retire or continue to serve; except him. He believes the sentence was unjust since there were no damages to the unit, no losses to DFAS, or any laws broken. As a result of the court-martial, he received 2.5 years of administrative leave without pay and loss of HHG entitlements. (1)Based on the evidence, he requests a favorable decision for the following: •The bad conduct discharge should be upgraded to an honorabledischarge since it was an administrative error. According to AR 600-8-24,Paragraph 1-22, a characterization would normally be based on a patternof behavior and duty performance rather than an isolated incident •To be promoted and retired as a Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) with pay andentitlements effective the date of the favorable decision •Amendment of orders for the time period to coincide with previous ordersso his HHG could be released and returned to his family (2)Based on a complete audit of his financial records for travel on duty, there were no misrepresentations of any filings for reimbursement; which was validated by the DFAS Special Actions Division. It was determined that he did not obtain any funds fraudulently from the Government and that the Government actually owed him over $5,000.00. It was also discovered that he was entitled to additional reimbursements. However, he did not file for these additional funds due to the action taken against him. (3) Multiple Soldier's in his unit were under review for the same charges. The Soldiers were MSG , MSG , CPT , CPT , MAJ , LTC , and BG . However, he was the only Soldier punished severely. Each case was supposed to be judged on its own merit and based on the DFAS audit, he did not create damage or debt to the Government and did not owe anything to the Government. Yet, he was convicted and given a bad conduct discharge while the other Soldiers were able to keep their careers and retirements. These Soldiers were even allowed to repay their overcharges to DFAS. The punishments should have been uniform and it was difficult for him to understand his harsh punishment compared to his peers. All soldiers were judged by JFTR/JTR Section T4005 except for him. His punishment was cruel and greatly impacted his family. Him and his family suffered financially and mentally from these actions. (4)He was selected for promotion to MAJ in 2008. His request for promotion toLTC is normal progression had he been allowed to continue his career path. (5)His HHG were put in storage after his conviction. Upon his release fromconfinement, he was ordered to a permanent change of station (PCS) to Fort Knox, and given permission to put his HHG in storage. His orders should have been amended to include HHG storage, but that never happened, and during a change in command, his order amendments were lost. When he attempted to retrieve his HHG from storage, the balance was astronomical. Since his orders were never amended, he was liable for the continuous cost of his HHG. (6)In 2004, GAO conducted a study titled "Army Reserve Soldiers Mobilized toActive Duty Experienced Significant Pay Problems"; which highlighted one of his Command units, 629th Transportation Detachment. These issues occurred throughout the National Guard and USAR. These issues were not individual problem as prosecuted by his unit, but an organizational issue that was never resolved. (7)While on administrative leave without pay, he volunteered to assist as aCasualty Assistance Officer to support families of servicemembers who died or was killed on duty. (8)According to his Warrior Screening Matrix, completed while still on activeduty, he should have been reassigned to a WTU to be medically boarded. The process was initiated and while he awaited the Board decision, he was placed on administrative leave and his Board decision halted. ee. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Memorandum, Subject: Clarifying Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans for Modification of their Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment, dated 25 August 2017 determined that clarification were required regarding mental health conditions (to include PTSD and TBI), sexual assault, and sexual harassment. Standards for review should rightly consider the unique nature of these cases and afford each Veteran a reasonable opportunity for relief; even if the sexual assault or sexual harassment was unreported or the mental health condition was not diagnosed until years later. ff. DA Form 5016, dated 2 November 2020, showing the applicant's retirement points for the period covering 20 September 1989 to10 December 2009: •101 IDT Points •216 Membership Points •4842 Active-Duty Points•16 years, 6 months, and 26 days qualifying retirement year •5111 Total Points Creditable gg. On 15 January 2020 and in ABCMR Docket Number AR20170007660, the ABCMR denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge to honorable, promotion to the rank of LTC and retirement, pay and entitlements, reinstatement and time to complete his MEB, and recalculation of all federal service time to reflect correct time in service for retirement. The Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors for the misconduct and no evidence of post-service achievement to weigh a clemency determination. hh. Excerpt of medical notes, dated 12 October 2021, noted that the applicant was treated at the Central Alabama Veterans Health Care System for TBI with loss of consciousness. ii. Excerpt of medical notes, covering period 5 April 2022 to 6 April 2022, noted that the applicant was treated at the Central Alabama Veterans Health Care System for a TBI follow-up. His symptoms included headaches, short/long-term memory concerns, sleep apnea, PTSD, tinnitus, dizziness/loss of balance, and vision changes. Under Military History, it was noted that the applicant completed 24 years of service and was taking 25 different medications. jj. Self-Authored Statement dated 14 July 2022, in which the applicant shared updates regarding his life since his court-martial conviction in December 2009. kk. News article "Fast action may have saved life", undated, which detailed the ordeal of , teacher at Central High School, when he experienced a medical emergency during school hours and was resuscitated with the help of several volunteers. 5.In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the HRC, ArmyService Center on 25 January 2023. The advisory stated the enclosed DA Form 5016 iscorrect as issued. The anniversary year end on the applicant's NGB Form 23(Retirement Points Summary Statement) was incorrect. He can provide his Leave andEarning Statements to the Kansas Army National Guard to recalculate his points on theNGB Form 23 to reflect the correct anniversary year end of September 2019. Oncecompleted, HRC can update his Army National Guard points on his DA Form 5016. HisDD Form214, ending on 14 February 2013, will not be added to his DA Form 5016 sincehe did not go back into a Reserve component. 6.The advisory opinion was provided to the applicant to afford him the opportunity torespond to its content. Through counsel, the applicant acknowledged that the advisoryaddressed his DA Form 50016, but he disagreed with the findings stating that theadvisory did not contain any additional facts and did not add understanding to the case. He will contact the Kansas National Guard, as requested, to update his relevant documents; however, that does not change the fact that the evidence provided supports the Board granting relief. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1.After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence foundwithin the military record, the Board found that partial relief was warranted. The Boardcarefully considered through counsel the applicant's record of service, documentssubmitted in support of the petition and executed a comprehensive and standard reviewbased on law, policy and regulation, and published Department of Defense guidance forliberal and clemency determinations requests for upgrade of his characterization ofservice. The Board agreed the character letters of support attest to the applicant’sintegrity, character and demonstrates the applicant continues to perform exceptionallysince his separation. However, upon review through counsel of the applicant’s petitionand available military records, the Board determined there was insufficient evidence ofin-service mitigating factors to overcome the misconduct that warranted an honorablecharacter of service.2.The Board noted based on regulatory guidance and applicant’s counsel, officers whoare court martial are dismissed and not discharged or given a bad conduct as reflectedon the DD form 214 for the period ending 14 February 2013, further the applicant’sseparation should reflect dismissed not discharged. Correction to the applicant’sDD Form 214 has merit based on regulation with an upgrade to under other thanhonorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. The Board determined that the narrativereason and separation code was not in error or unjust. The Board considered the HRCand DFAS advisory, the Board agreed with the advising official finding the applicant andhis counsel’s contentions regarding update his DA Form 5016 (Chronological Statementof Retirement Points) to show 20 years, 5 months, and 2 days is incorrect. The Boardnoted within the HRC advisory, the applicant and his counsel were provided the properguidance for correction by providing his Leave and Earning Statements to the KansasArmy National Guard to recalculate his points on the NGB Form 23 to reflect the correctanniversary year end of September 2019. Whereas, once completed, HRC can updatehis Army National Guard points on his DA Form 5016. The Board determined; noconsideration is warranted based on the HRC advising official guidance.3.Furthermore, the Board carefully considered the DFAS audit memorandum findingall of the applicant's claims to Contingency Travel-Indianapolis from March 2006 toMay 2008 and no documents were suspected of being fraudulent. The applicant's debtstatus was primarily caused by reimbursement of monthly mortgage payments byContingency Travel. Contingency Travel-Indianapolis reimbursed monthly mortgagepayments instead of paying or reimbursing the interest of the monthly mortgagepayments. The Board noted, the examiner concluded that (1) no fraudulent documents were found, (2) the applicant was placed into debt due to Contingency Travel, (3) the debt was reduced by Contingency Travel, and (4) the debt was cleared or paid. Evidence in the records show the Examiner determined that the applicant was unaware that mortgage payments were not reimbursable when he submitted a claim. Additionally, the Board determined, the examiner was aware that other Soldiers submitted similar claims under this false impression. 4.Consideration was given by the Board that there was a statute that ContingencyTravel-Indianapolis had to process the applicant's claims correctly initially, whichcontributed to the applicant's assumption that his claims were valid. Based on regulatoryguidance for officer’s and evidence provided by the applicant’s counsel, the Boarddetermined there was sufficient evidence for correction of the applicant DD Form 214 toensure the entries reflect are accurately annotated on the applicant’s DD Form 214 thatare associated with an officer punished at a general court-martial with a Dismissal.Therefore, the Board granted partial relief.5.The Army has an interest in maintaining the integrity of its records for historicalpurposes. The information in those records must reflect the conditions andcircumstances that existed at the time the records were created. The applicant’srequest for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered. In this case, theevidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision. As a result, apersonal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justicein this case. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF :X :X :X GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1.The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant arecommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Departmentof the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by amending the applicant’sDD Form 214 for the period ending 14 February 2013 to show in•item 23 (Type of Separation) Dismissal•item 24 (Character of Service) Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC)2.The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant aportion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much ofthe application that pertains to•change of the applicant’s character of service to Honorable•correction of his DD Form 214 to change his separation code, reentry code, andnarrative reason for separation to show "Secretarial Authority"•update his DA Form 5016 to show 20 years 5 months, and 2 days and issuance ofa 20-Year Letter Microsoft Office Signature Line... 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.Army Regulation (AR) 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures forcorrection of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR.The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or request additional evidence oropinions. Additionally, Additionally, Paragraph 2-11 states that applicants do not have aright to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formalhearing whenever justice requires. 2.Title 10, United States Code (USC), section 1552(b) provides (1) that applications forcorrection of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the allegederror or injustice and allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely filewithin the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in theinterest of justice to do so. The provision also states for records of courts-martial and related administrative records pertaining to court-martial cases tried or reviewed under the UCMJ, action to correct any military record of the Secretary's Department may extend only to correction of a record to reflect actions taken by reviewing authorities under the UCMJ or action on the sentence of a court-martial for purposes of clemency. 3.Title 10, USC, section 12731 provides that a person is entitled, upon application, toretired pay if the person has attained the eligibility age applicable; has performed atleast 20 years of service; and is not entitled to retired pay from an Armed Force orretainer pay as a member of the Fleet Reserve or the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.Application for retired pay must be made to the Secretary of the military department, orthe Secretary of Homeland Security. The Secretary shall notify each person who hascompleted the years of service required for eligibility for retired pay, in writing, withinone year after the person completes that service. The date of entitlement to retired payshall be the date on which the requirements have been completed. The eligibility age is60 years of age. 4.AR 600-8-24 (Officer transfers and discharges) provided policies and proceduresgoverning the transfer and discharge of Army officer personnel. a.Paragraph 1-4 (Statutory authority). Officer transfers and discharges are closelygoverned by statute and by DoD directives and instructions. Personnel involved in officer transfers and discharges should remain alert to changes in the governing statutes and DoD directives and instructions as those authorities take precedence over this regulation. Where governing statutes or DoD Directives and Instructions supersede specific provisions of this regulation, the unaffected provisions of this regulation will remain in force. b.Paragraph 1-17 (An officer under investigation or pending court-martial). Anofficer pending court-martial charges or investigation with a review toward court-martial will not be separated without Headquarters Department of the Army approval. c.Paragraph 1-18 (An officer awaiting appellate review of adjudged dismissal ordishonorable discharge). An officer who has been convicted and sentenced to dismissal or dishonorable discharge will not be discharged prior to completion of appellate review without prior approval of the Commanding General, HRC. d.Paragraph 1-23 (Types of administrative discharge/character of service). Whenan Officer's tour of active duty is terminated due to discharge, retirement, or release from active duty, the period of service will be characterized as Honorable, Under Honorable Conditions (General), Under Other Than Honorable, or Dishonorable. The character of service will be predicated on the Officer's behavior and performance while a member of the Army. Characterization normally will be based on a pattern of behavior and duty performance rather than an isolated incident. However, there are circumstances in which conduct reflected by a single incident may provide the basis of characterization of service. (1). Honorable. 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, or the final revocation of a security clearance for reasons that do not involve acts of misconduct, for an officer. When the separation is based solely on preservice activities, substandard performance of duty, or final revocation of a security clearance for reasons that do not involve acts of misconduct, it will be Honorable. (2). General Under Honorable Conditions. 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 will normally be appropriate when an officer: •Submits an unqualified resignation or a request for release from active dutyunder circumstances involving misconduct •Is separated based on misconduct, including misconduct for whichpunishment was imposed, which renders the officer unsuitable for furtherservice •Is discharged for a physical disability resulting from intentional misconduct orwillful neglect, or which was incurred during a period of unauthorized absence •Is discharged for the final revocation of a security clearance as a result of anact of misconduct, including misconduct for which punishment was imposed (3). Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. A discharge Under Other Than Honorable Conditions is an administrative separation and an Officer will normally receive this characterization of service when they: •Resign for the good of the service •Are dropped from the rolls of the Army •Are involuntarily separated due to misconduct, moral or professionaldereliction, or for the final revocation of a security clearance as a result of anact or acts of misconduct, including misconduct for which punishment wasimposed •Are discharged following conviction by civilian authorities (4). Dishonorable. A court-martial may sentence a Warrant Officer who is not commissioned to a Dishonorable Discharge. (5)Dismissal. A GCM may sentence a commissioned officer to a dismissal. e.Paragraph 5-17 (Rules for processing dismissal of an officer due to generalcourts-martial proceedings). An officer convicted and sentenced to dismissal as a result of GCM proceedings will be processed pending appellate review of such proceedings as follows: (1)An RA officer will be retained on AD until the appellate review is completed orplaced on excess leave in accordance with AR 600-8-10. (2)An RC officer may be released from AD pending completion of the appellatereview, under paragraphs 2-33 and 2-34, or placed on excess leave in accordance with AR 600-8-10 in lieu of REFRAD. (3)The HRC will make the final determination regarding retention or separation.Separation instructions will be issued by HRC-Alexandria (AHRC-OPD-A) to the appropriate PSC/MPD. f.Paragraph 5-18 (Steps for processing dismissal of an officer due to general courts-martial proceedings) The steps required for processing dismissal of an officer due to general courts-martial proceedings are as shown in table 5-8. 5.AR 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, governed the preparation ofthe DD Form 214. It stated that the DD Form 214 is a synopsis of the Soldier's mostrecent period of continuous active duty. It provided a brief, clear-cut record of activeArmy service at the time of release from active duty, retirement or discharge. It statesfor: a.Block 24 (Character of Service) – Characterization or description of service isdetermined by directives authorizing separation. For a Soldier being released from custody and control of the Army due to a void or voided enlistment, enter one of the following: •Honorable •Under honorable conditions (general) •Under other than honorable conditions •Bad conduct •Dishonorable •Uncharacterized •Dismissal b.Block 26 (Separation Code) – To be completed for copies 2, 4, 7, and 8 only.Obtain correct entry from AR 635–5–1,which provides the corresponding separation program designator code for the regulatory authority and reason for separation. c.Block 27 (Reentry Code) – AR 601-210 (Active and Reserve ComponentsEnlistment Program) determines Regular Army and U.S. Army Reserve reentry eligibility and provides regulatory guidance on the reentry codes. These codes are not applicable to officers or Reserve Component Soldiers being separated for other than cause. d.Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – This is based on regulatory or otherauthority and can be checked against the cross reference in AR 635-5-1. For Soldiers ordered to Active Duty Training (ADT), Active Guard/Reserve (AGR), TTAD, Full-time National Guard duty (FTNGD), or Active Duty Special Work (ADSW) on self-terminating orders, enter "Completion of Period of ADT, AGR, TTAD, FTNGD, or ADSW." 6.On 25 August 2017, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel andReadiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to DRBsand BCM/NRs when considering requests by Veterans for modification of theirdischarges due in whole, or in part, to: mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI;sexual assault; and sexual harassment. Boards were directed to give liberalconsideration to veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief isbased in whole or in part to those conditions or experiences. The guidance furtherdescribes evidence sources and criteria and requires Boards to consider the conditionsor experiences presented in evidence as potential mitigation for that misconduct whichled to the discharge. 7.On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readinessissued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction ofMilitary/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemencydeterminations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminalsentence. 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 maybe warranted based on equity or relief from injustice. This guidance does not mandaterelief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of theirequitable 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 arelevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment. Changes to thenarrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of service granted solelyon equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not result in separation pay,retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses or similar benefits thatmight have been received if the original discharge had been for the revised reason orhad the upgraded service characterization. 8.AR 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) implements DoD policyfor standardization of certain entries on the DD Form 214. Paragraph 2-5 (Separationprogram designators applicable to officer personnel) provides Table 2-2 which lists SPDcodes in alphabetical order. SPD Code "JJD" is the appropriate code for members triedby a Court-Martial. JFF would be the appropriate code for "Secretarial Authority." //NOTHING FOLLOWS//