1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 31 January 2017 b. Date Received: 21 February 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that the discharge should have been general (under honorable conditions). The applicant contends he had gone before his colonel who reduced rank from Staff Sergeant to Sergeant. Then three months later the applicant went before a panel of three (Colonel, Captain, and a Master Sergeant) and was reduced to E-1. The applicant believes that being reduced from Staff Sergeant to Sergeant the first time should have been the punishment. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review in the service record, the applicant did not have a mitigating medical or behavioral health condition for the offenses which led to his separation from the Army. A review of electronic military medical records indicated diagnoses of an Adjustment Disorder, ADHD, Major Depression and PTS, however the applicant's behavioral health conditions are not mitigating for or reasonably related to the misconduct. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 20 July 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 29 July 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 14 April 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for wrongfully having sexual intercourse with a married woman not his wife on 12 November 2015, 14 November 2015, and 15 November 2015; and Making a false official statement on 14 December 2015 (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 15 April 2016, the applicant requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation board. (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 24 May 2016, the applicant along with his counsel appeared before the board. The board determined that the applicant did wrongfully have sexual intercourse with Ms. X, a married woman not his wife between on or about 12 November 2015 and 15 November 2015, and on or about 19 January 2016 and that he made a false official statement to Captain X., on or about 14 December 2015. The board recommended that the applicant be separated from the service and that his service be characterized as under other than honorable conditions. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 22 June 2016 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 6 November 2015 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 33 / HS Graduate / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 25B10, IT Specialist / 10 years, 4 months, 8 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 22 March 2006 to 3 October 2008 / HD RA, 4 October 2008 to 5 November 2015 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA, Korea / Afghanistan (19 January 2008 to 9 April 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, ASUA, AGCM-3, NDSM, KDSM, ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, NOPDR, ASR, OSR-3, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: None during the period under review. h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: AR 15-6 Investigation regarding alleged misconduct by the applicant. Police documents from the Sierra Vista Police Department. FG, Article 15, dated 19 February 2016, for with intent to deceive, making to CPT X., an official statement, to wit: I have never been to Ms. X., house, and I did not have a physically intimate relationship with her at an time," or words to that effect, which statement was totally false, and was then known by him to be so false on 14 December 2015 and him as a married man, wrongfully had sexual intercourse with Ms. X., a married woman not his wife on 12 November 2015, 14 November 2015, and 15 November 2015. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-5, forfeiture of $1,494 pay per month for two months, restriction for 60 days, and an oral reprimand. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 25 March 2016, shows the applicant was seen and evaluated for a mental status evaluation for clearance / separation. The evaluation included a full battery of clinical measures using the Behavioral Health Data Portal, a review of the behavioral health record, and clinical interview. The results of the evaluation are as follows: the applicant was cleared (from a BH perspective) for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command to include chapter / separation. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted. Paragraph 14-12c states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. National Defense Authorization Act 2017 provided specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) in connection with combat or sexual assault or sexual harassment as a basis for discharge review. Further, it provided that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; as a basis for the discharge. In August 2017, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provided further clarifying guidance to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms that the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant's service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant seeks relief contending that he believes his discharge should have been general (under honorable conditions). He contends he had gone before his colonel who reduced him from Staff Sergeant to Sergeant. Then three months later he went before a panel of three (Colonel, Captain, and a Master Sergeant) and they reduced him to E-1. He believes that being reduced from Staff Sergeant to Sergeant the first time should have been his punishment. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, the service record indicates the applicant committed several discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant's numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 20 July 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Issue a New Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change Authenticating Official: SECRETARIAL REVIEWING AUTHORITY (SRA): While the Board determined your discharge was proper and equitable; as the Secretarial Reviewing Authority, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) reviewed the findings, conclusions, and the board's recommendation under the authority of Title 10 United States Code Section 1553(b) and Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 (Discharge Review Board (DRB) Procedures and Standards), enclosure E3.7.1.1.1. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) found sufficient evidence to upgrade the characterization of service to General (Under Honorable Conditions). Therefore, your DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) will be corrected by issuing you a new DD Form 214 changing the characterization of service to General (Under Honorable Conditions). The narrative reason, separation authority, and SPD and RE codes will remain the same. Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NCO - Noncommissioned Officer SCM - Summary Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial BH - Behavioral Health HD - Honorable Discharge NOS - Not Otherwise Specified SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OAD - Ordered to Active Duty TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP - Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS - Entry Level Status MST - Military Sexual Trauma PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable RE - Reentry VA - Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20170003253 1