1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 17 May 2017 b. Date Received: 20 June 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests a separation program designator (SPD) code change, a narrative reason change and that the active duty deployments to Iraq be annotated in the DD Form 214. The applicant further requests removal of all language from the "remarks" section in Block 18 of the form that references the discharge in lieu of elimination. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, understands the discharge accurately captures that the applicant was separated under the provisions of AR 600-8-24. The applicant does not believe that this basis should be used given PTSD and the facts provided in the application. The applicant respectfully requests the Board change the discharge to reflect the basis of separation as competition of service. At the time of discharge, the applicant had served 10 months beyond the date of obligated service of 15 November 2015. The applicant states, had the command been aware of the PTSD and the facts surrounding the incident, the applicant is hopeful that it would have elected to use completion of required active service as the basis of his separation. The applicant did not provide the command with the option of allowing the applicant to resign based upon completion of required service. Instead of sharing the facts with the command, the applicant simply lowered one's head and accepted its judgment. The applicant states, during the additional 10 months active duty, the applicant continued to work hard for the command. As the Battalion Assistant S-3, the applicant was responsible for assisting the S-3 in developing, planning, and synchronizing the battalion's training and tactical missions. Though the applicant did not receive an OER for this time, the applicant exceeded the standard in performing the assigned duties. The applicant realizes the request may not appear to be a significant one to the Board and that the SPD code and the remarks do not impact the honorable discharge; the annotation of deployments in 2006 and 2009 will not affect the 100 percent disability rating or any of the military entitlements the applicant currently receives; however, the requested changes will have a profound impact on the applicant and mental wellbeing. It pains the applicant to look at the discharge and that the applicant proudly served for 11 years, 3 months, and 11 days. The applicant wants to be able to display the discharge documentation in one's home, but cannot in its current form. The applicant requests liberal consideration to the request, which will mean the world to the applicant. The applicant further details contentions in an allied self-authored statement provided with the application. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review at the time in the service record, the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA), and Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV), notes indicate diagnoses of Anxiety Disorder and Depressive Disorder NOS. The applicant is 70% service-connected for Traumatic Brain Disease from the VA. The applicant has also been diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder, Psychosis, ADHD, and PTSD. In summary, the applicant's BH diagnoses are not mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 24 April 2020, 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: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b and 4-24a (1) / BNC / NA / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 23 September 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 16 October 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2b and c for misconduct or professional dereliction, and derogatory information, due to the following reasons: He engaged in an inappropriate relationship with an Enlisted Soldier's wife while he was married. On 6 October 2015, a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) was filed in his Army Human Resource Record (AMHRR) for the misconduct cited in above. He committed misconduct that was unbecoming of an Officer as referenced above. (3) Legal Consultation Date: 22 October 2015 (4) Request for Discharge in Lieu of Elimination Date: 23 October 2015 (5) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 10 December 2015, the GOSCA recommended disapproval of the applicant's request for resignation in lieu of elimination / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (6) DA Ad Hoc Review Board: The AD Hoc review board considered the applicant's request for discharge in lieu of elimination in accordance with AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4. (7) DASA Review Board Decision Date / Characterization: 7 September 2016 / Honorable 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 15 November 2012 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment / Education: 26 / Bachelor's Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-2 / 91A 5K 5P, Maintenance and Munitions Material Officer / 11 years, 3 months, 11 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 7 February 2005 - 22 June 2008 / HD RA, 23 June 2008 - 14 November 2012 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (on or about 16 August 2006 - 7 August 2007 / on or about 2 July 2009 - 3 July 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-4, AAM-6, MUC, ASUA, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, NCOPDR-3, ASR, OSR-2 g. Performance Ratings: 31 August 2012 - 31 July 2014 / Highly Qualified 31 July 2014 - 1 June 2015 / Highly Qualified 2 June 2015 - 1 May 2016 / Not Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Informal AR 15-6 Investigation Findings and Recommendations, dated 16 July 2015, reflects the investigation officer found that the applicant's actions violated Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: The applicant engaged in an inappropriate relationship with the wife of SPC P. The applicant had full knowledge that Mrs. A. M. was married to SPC P. After learning Mrs. A. M. was married to SPC P., the applicant continued the relationship. The applicant's relationship was at times sexual in nature (photos/context of text conversation) but there was no evidence that he committed adultery with SPC P.'s wife. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 19 August 2015, for or knowingly having an inappropriate relationship with an enlisted Soldier's wife while the applicant was married. An AR 15-6 Investigation revealed that while the applicant's was a Platoon Leader for E/1-82 ARB, he had an inappropriate relationship with a fellow 82 ARB Soldier's wife between 20 August 2014 and 29 September 2014. The applicant's conduct negatively impacted the morale in his unit and was prejudicial to the good order and discipline of his fellow Soldiers and Officers. The applicant's conduct was inexcusable, and the imposing authority had serious concerns about the applicant's fitness to lead. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 9 December 2015, reflects the applicant the applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Anxiety Disorder NOS. The applicant provided a copy of his VA Rated Disabilities, dated 24 September 2016, which reflects the applicant was rated 70 percent disability for TBI with PTSD (also claimed as loss of consciousness and anxiety/depression/panic attacks/sleep issues). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; Correction of Erroneous Records (memo); Officer Elimination Packet; DD Form 214; Orders 305-9; Permanent Orders 212-03; Permanent Orders 119-03; Officer Record Brief; Supplemental ADRB request (memo) with all listed enclosures; VA Summary of Benefits; Rated Disabilities. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interest of national security. A discharge of honorable, general, or under other than honorable conditions characterization of service may be granted. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "BNC" as the appropriate code to assign commissioned officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b, unacceptable conduct; and, 4-24a (1), resignation in lieu of elimination. Secretary of Defense Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments (Subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, dated September 3, 2014), provided guidance to help ensure consistency across the military services in consideration of PTSD relevant to Service Members' discharges. "Liberal consideration will be given in petitions for changes in characterization of service to service treatment record entries which document one of more symptoms which meet the diagnostic criteria of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or related conditions. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations which document PTSD or PTSD-related conditions connected to military services. In cases where Service Records or any document from the period of service substantiated the existence of one or more symptoms of what is now recognized as PTSD or PTSD-related condition during the time of service, liberal consideration will be given to finding that PTSD existed at the time of service. Liberal consideration will also be given in cases where civilian providers confer diagnoses of PTSD or PTSD-related conditions, when case records contain narratives that support symptomatology at the time of service, or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that PTSD or a PTSD-related disorder existed at the time of discharge which might have mitigated the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. This guidance in not applicable to cases involving pre- existing conditions which are determined not to have been incurred or aggravated while in military service." "Conditions documented in the 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 PTSD or PTSD related conditions 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 under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Correction boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service other than honorable conditions. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD or PTSD-related conditions as a causative factor 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. Correction Boards will also exercise caution 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 a separation program designator (SPD) code change, a narrative reason change and that his active duty deployments to Iraq be annotated in his DD Form 214. The applicant further requests removal of all language from the "remarks" section in Block 18 of the form that references the discharge in lieu of elimination. 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 Army officers. It brought discredit on the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant provided no corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the unacceptable conduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained. Further, the applicant's record contains no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed. However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b and 4-24a (1), AR 600-8-24 with a honorable discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Unacceptable Conduct," and the separation code is "BNC." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant requests removal of all references to discharge in lieu of elimination from block 18, "Remarks" of his DD Form 214. He further requests that his active duty deployments to Iraq be reflected on his DD Form 214. However, the applicant's requested changes to the DD Form 214 do not fall within the purview of this Board. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. The applicant contends he was retained on active duty beyond his ETS without cause. However, 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. Further, evidence of the record reflects the applicant was appointed as officer on 15 November 2012, for an indefinite term. The applicant had an Obligated Active Duty commiment of 3 years, which does equate to an Expiration Term of Service (ETS). The applicant contends the VA has granted him a service-connected disability for TBI with PTSD. However, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge. The record reflects that on 9 December 2015, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. It appears the applicant's chain of command determined that he knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation. The applicant contends that he had good service which included two combat tours. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended for his accomplishments. 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 24 April 2020, 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: 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 AR20170009505 1