1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 8 June 2017 b. Date Received: 23 June 2017 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and to change the narrative reason for discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the "discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in over 15 years of service with no other adverse action." The applicant's service record is exemplary, aside from one isolated event. The discharge was inequitable, considering the totality of military service record, a PTSD medical condition that was not diagnosed at the time of misconduct, and a panel comprised of biased members presided over the Board of Inquiry hearing on 25 September 2015. The applicant received two Bronze Star Medals, a Meritorious Service Medal, four Army Commendation Medals, four Army Achievement Medals, three Meritorious Unit Citations, and many other awards. (The applicant detailed the assignments and achievements.) In summer 2014, the applicant attended marriage counseling with the (now ex) wife, after six years of infertility treatments and multiple miscarriages in attempts to conceive a child. The misconduct that led to separation from the military began that fall. The applicant was diagnosed with Combat-Related Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in early 2015 and the therapist attributed the misconduct directly to the PTSD diagnosis. The applicant made multiple attempts to reconcile the marriage; including attending an intensive four-day couple's therapy retreat, to no avail. Ultimately, the previously undiagnosed combat-related mental health condition cost a career and marriage. Since discharge, the applicant has received a 50 percent Combat-Related PTSD Disability rating from VA. The Board of Inquiry consisted of a Colonel and two Lieutenant Colonels. The request to remove a board member, LTC X., due to supposition of prejudice was denied. LTC X. served as the rear detachment Brigade Commander, of a Combat Aviation Brigade, which included CPT J.N. as an interim Adjutant to the Brigade Command Team. CPT X., the husband of the woman the applicant had the affair with, was also the government's primary witness and who initiated the investigation that resulted in separation. LTC X. knowing of the affair and having an ongoing command relationship with CPT X. had a conflict of interest and the inability to remain unbiased, and a negative influence on the other board members. (The applicant detailed post-service accomplishments.) The applicant accepted the Article 15 punishment without hesitation as the applicant understood the wrongdoing-the applicant's integrity never wavered during this process. The applicant made one mistake, asked for forgiveness, and continued to receive therapy. The applicant is now engaged in a committed relationship, and a father, as of June 2017. The current discharge does not accurately reflect the total character of 15 years of service-it prevents the applicant from obtaining employment with the Government or contract employment. It is a stigma that severely limits employment opportunities and it is not in line with who the applicant is as a person. 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 Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Depressed Mood, PTSD, and Problems of Adjustment to Life Cycle Transitions. The applicant has a 50% service-connected rating from the VA for PTSD. In summary, although the applicant had a BH diagnosis, it is not mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 8 March 2019, 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, Paragraphs 4-2b and 4-24a(1) / BNC / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 12 October 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 30 June 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Between 1 September 2014 and 28 April 2015, he wrongfully and dishonorably engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship with First Lieutenant X., a married woman not his wife, which conduct was to the disgrace of the Armed Forces and unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman. He wrongfully had sexual intercourse with First Lieutenant X., a woman not his wife, such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline of the Armed Forces. On 24 June 2015, a General Officer Article 15 was filed in his Army Military Human Resource Record for the aforementioned offenses. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 24 July 2015 (5) DA Ad Hoc Review Board Recommendation: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 24 January 2007 / Indefinite (MRD: 31 March 2037) b. Age at Appointment / Education / GT Score: 23 / 14 years / NA c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: WO3 / 890A0, Ammunition Technician / 15 years, 3 months, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA (21 June 2001 to 23 January 2007) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Afghanistan (25 January 2006 to 6 April 2006), (26 September 2006 to 17 November 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: BSM-2; MSM; ARCOM-5; AAM-5; AGCM; NDSM; ACM- 4CS; ICM-CS; GWOTEM; GWOTSM; AFSM; NCOPDR-2; ASR; OSR-3; NATO MDL; MUC-3; ASUA g. Performance Ratings: 10 OERs: 13 April 2007 thru 12 April 2008, Outstanding Performance, Must Promote 13 April 2008 thru 4 March 2009, Outstanding Performance, Must Promote 6 March 2009 thru 5 March 2010, Outstanding Performance, Must Promote 6 March 2010 thru 30 October 2010, Satisfactory Performance, Promote 31 October 2010 thru 30 October 2011, Outstanding Performance, Must Promote 31 October 2011 thru 23 February 2012, Outstanding Performance, Must Promote 24 February 2012 thru 23 February 2013, Outstanding Performance, Must Promote 24 February 2013 thru 23 February 2014, Outstanding Performance, Must Promote 23 February 2014 thru 22 February 2015, Excels 23 February 2015 thru 22 February 2016, (Referred) Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: GO Article 15, dated 24 June 2015, for wrongfully and dishonorably engaging in an inappropriate relationship with 1LT C.N., between 1 September 2014, and 28 April 2015, and wrongfully having sexual intercourse with 1LT C.N., a married woman, not his wife, between 1 September 2014, and 28 April 2015. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $1,500 pay per month for two months. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 2 July 2015, provided no diagnoses, and that the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for separation for Article 133 and 134 consideration per his command. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 14 July 2015, indicates the applicant and the examiner noted the applicant receiving treatment for PTSD, since 2013, and Adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood. Applicant's documentary evidence: Letter, dated 23 June 2015, rendered by a licensed professional counselor with a Psychological Services, indicates the diagnostic impressions (DSM-V) of the applicant were Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traits of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. VA letter, dated 14 April 2017, indicates the applicant was assigned 50 percent evaluation for his PTSD, chronic (also claimed as anxiety and depression). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; self-authored affidavit, dated 16 January 2019; letter, dated 23 June 2015, rendered by a licensed professional counselor with a Psychological Services; VA letter, dated 14 April 2017; military law attorney letter, dated 13 October 2015; Academic Transcript; Certificate of Live Birth; and DD Form 214. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, in effect, that since his discharge, he returned to school and graduated with Bachelor's in Business Administration with a 4.0 GPA. He was invited to join the Golden Key International Honor Society. He is current enrolled in a Professional Master's in Business Administration (PMBA) program at a university and maintains a 4.0 GPA. He is also the PMBA chair on a Graduate School of Business Graduate Council and a board member of a Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP). He also joined the Fort Campbell chapter of Team Red White and Blue, whose mission is to enrich the lives of America's Veterans by connecting them to their community through physical and social activities. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation (AR) 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. Paragraph 1-22a, provides that 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. An honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. A general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service will normally be issued to an officer when the officer's military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A separation general (under honorable conditions) will normally be appropriate when an officer submits an unqualified resignation or a request for relief from active duty under circumstances involving misconduct which renders the officer unsuitable for further service, unless an under other than honorable conditions separation is appropriate. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is an administrative separation from the service under conditions other than honorable. An officer will normally receive an under other than honorable conditions 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 professional dereliction, or for the final revocation of a security clearance as a result of an act or acts of misconduct. 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 Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4, paragraphs 4-2b and 4-24a(1), unacceptable conduct, pursuant to resignation or voluntary discharge in lieu of elimination proceedings. 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 general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and to change the narrative reason for his discharge. The applicant's available record of service, and the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms the applicant's discharge, based on unacceptable conduct, 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 the command's action was erroneous or sufficient evidence showing his service mitigated the unacceptable conduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant contends the incident that caused his discharge was the only one in his entire Army career. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant contends the discharge was unjust; in that it was inequitable, considering the totality of his military service record, his PTSD medical condition that was not diagnosed at the time of his misconduct, and a panel comprised of biased members presiding over the Board of Inquiry hearing. However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further sufficient evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge and to change the narrative reason for his discharge. The applicant's contentions regarding his behavioral health issues which involved being diagnosed with PTSD after his discharge, were carefully considered. A careful review of the available record and the applicant's documentary evidence indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues along with notable service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms existed, and the applicant contends they were contributing factors that led to his misconduct. If the Board determines the applicant's behavioral health issues were significant contributing factors to his misconduct, it can grant appropriate relief by changing the reason for separation and/or the characterization of service. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incidents of misconduct, and his post-service accomplishments, the Board can find that his complete period of service and accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service and to change the narrative reason for his discharge. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re- characterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. The applicant requests to change the reason for his separation; however, the narrative reason for his separation is governed by specific directives and as approved by the separation authority. The narrative reason specified by AR 635-5-1 for a discharge under Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b and paragraph 4-24a(1) is "Unacceptable Conduct," and the separation code is BNC. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. 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 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 8 March 2019, 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 AR20170009808 2