1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 21 January 2019 b. Date Received: 24 January 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to general (under honorable conditions) or honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he served for almost 24 years as enlisted and as an officer. He realizes the mistake he made but it should not cost him everything he worked so hard for and sacrificed so much throughout his career. He is remorseful for his actions and if given the opportunity he would make better decisions. In a records review conducted on 26 May 2021, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board's decision (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 600-8-24, Chapter 3-13 / DFS / NA / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 27 September 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458, Charge Sheet which indicates on 23 February 2017, the applicant was charged with wrongfully and without authority, wear upon his uniform, the Ranger Tab, such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the Armed Forces and of a nature to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces on divers occasions from (24 February 2014 to 13 December 2016); wrongfully endeavor to impede an Article 15 Hearing, in the case of himself, by presenting false evidence during the proceeding portraying that he had completed United States Army Ranger Course 09-01 to Major General J.U., such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the Armed Forces and of a nature to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces (13 December 2016); wrongfully and bigamously marry A.M.A., having at the time of his marriage to A.M.A., a lawful wife then living, H.R.E., such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the Armed Forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces (26 June 2015); wrongfully endeavor to impede an investigation, in the case of himself, by wrongfully asking Mrs. J.N.W., not to speak to United States Army Criminal Investigation Division special agents about him, such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the Armed Forces and of a nature to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces between (10 May 2016 and 13 July 2016); wrongfully and dishonorably certify that he had a bachelor's degree, when in fact he had not been conferred a bachelor's degree, and that, under the circumstances, his conduct was unbecoming an officer and a gentleman (14 April 2014); while enrolled at the Command General Staff College, wrongfully and dishonorably submit plagiarized papers as his own work in violation of the Command and General Staff College's Ethics Policy, and that, under the circumstances, his conduct was unbecoming an officer and a gentleman (5 April 2016); steal money, military property, of a value more than $500, the property of the United States Government, payment intended to compensate the expense for, the travel of his spouse, Mrs. H.E., and his child, Miss H.S., for his dislocation with dependents, and for the transportation of a second personally-owned vehicle (between (31 August 2015 and 6 November 2015); steal money, military property, of a value more than $500, the property of the United States Government, payment intended to compensate the expense for the temporary lodging of his spouse, Mrs. H.E., and his child, Miss H.S. between (3 November 2015 and 3 December 2015); with intent to deceive, sign an official voucher, sign a voucher for travel allowances showing that his spouse, Mrs. H.E., and his daughter, Miss H.S., accompanied him on his permanent change of station to Fort Hood, Texas, which voucher was false in that his spouse, Mrs. H.E., and his daughter, Miss H.S., did not accompany him on his permanent change of station move, and was then known by the applicant to be false (7 October 2015); and with intent to deceive, sign an official voucher, sign a voucher for temporary lodging expenses showing that his spouse, Mrs. H.E., and his daughter, Miss H.S., accompanied him on his permanent change of station to Fort Hood, Texas, which voucher was false in that his spouse, Mrs. H.E. and his daughter, Miss H.S., did not accompany him on his permanent change of station move, and was then known by the applicant to be so false (3 November 2015). (2) Legal Consultation Date: On 29 May 2017, the applicant consulted with legal counsel. On 30 May 2017, the applicant voluntarily tendered his resignation from the Army for the good of the service under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, chapter 3, paragraph 3-13. The applicant did not desire to appear before a court-martial or board of officers (BOI). (3) Administrative Separation Board / BOI: None (4) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Chapter 3, AR 600-8-24, Resignation, In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. (5) Recommended Characterization: On 26 June 2017, DA, Headquarters, III Corps and Fort Hood, Fort Hood, Texas, The Commanding General recommended disapproval of the applicant's request for resignation for the Good of the Service in Lieu of General Courts-Martial. His recommendation was based on the severity of the alleged offenses preferred against the applicant. The senior intermediate commander recommended approval of the applicant's resignation. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: On 12 September 2017, The Department of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board reviewed his Resignation for the Good of the Service in Lieu of General Court-Martial tendered by the applicant. The Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) accepted his resignation and he was discharged from the U.S. Army with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 19 June 2003 / NIF b. Age at Appointment: / Education: 33 / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-4 / 35D All Source Intelligence / 29 years, 2 months, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 7 July 1988 to 12 September 1988 / NA IADT, 13 September 1988 to 28 February 1989 / HD ARNG, 1 March 1989 to 9 June 1989 / NA AD, 10 June 1989 to 24 June 1989 / NA ARNG, 25 June 1989 to 1 June 1990 / NA AD, 2 June 1990 to 16 June 1990 / NA ARNG, 17 June 1990 to 11 June 1991 / NA AD, 12 June to 30 June 1991 / NA ARNG, 1 July 1991 to 24 July 1992 / NA AD, 25 July 1992 to 8 August 1992 / NA ARNG, 9 August 1992 to 18 April 1993 / NA AD, 19 April 1993 to 23 April 1993 / NA ARNG, 24 April 1993 to 18 June 1993 / NA AD, 19 June 1993 to 25 June 1993 / NA ARNG, 26 June 1993 to 31 March 1994 / NA AD, 1 April 1994 to 13 April 1994 / NA ARNG, 14 April 1994 to 5 August1994 / NA AD, 6 August 1994 to 20 August 1994 / NA ARNG, 21 August 1994 to 5 January 1995 /NA AD, 6 January 1995 to 20 January 1995 / NA ARNG, 21 January 1995 to 2 April 1995 / HD RA, 3 April 1995 to 18 June 1993 / NA Appointed 2LT / USAR, 19 June 2003 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / Hawaii / SWA / Iraq x2, 15 March 2004 to 15 November 2004 and 17 January 2005 to 11 January 2006 / Afghanistan x2, 15 January 2007 to 26 January 2008 and 28 March 2014 to 2 February 2015 / Saudi Arabia, 1 July 2012 to 1 July 2013 f. Awards and Decorations: DMSM, MSM-2, JSCM, ARCOM-4, AAM-4, ASUA, AGCM-2, NDSM-3, CM-3CS, ICM-CS, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NOPDR-2, ASR-2, OSR-6, NATO MDL, EIB g. Performance Ratings: 18 February 2013 to 1 July 2013, Best Qualified 1 March 2013 to 30 June 2016, Highly Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: An administrative General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 17 August 2016, for plagiarizing his H 100 paper, C-400 book review and F-104 / F105 paper while a student at the Command and General Staff Officer Couse at Fort Lee, Virginia. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 2 June 2017, reflects the applicant was screened for PTSD, TBI, substance use disorders, depression, and sexual trauma. These conditions were either not present or not of sufficient severity to warrant disposition through medical channels. The applicant did not suffer from a mental health condition of sufficient severity to require duty limitations or warrant referral to MEB / IDES. He was mentally responsible for his behavior, could distinguish between right and wrong, and possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate intelligently in any administrative action deemed appropriate by Command. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, Decision Document; Good Soldier Book Consisting of OERs, NATO Medal Certificates, JSCM Certificate, AAM Certificates; ASUA Certificate, MSM Certificate; ARCOM Certificates, DMSM Certificate, JSCM Orders 314-130, Hazardous Duty Orders 082-005, Parachutist Badge Orders 269-2938, Expert Infantryman Badge Orders 148-375, Air Assault Badge Orders 268-00017, Individual Jump Record, Memorandum, Three Letters of Recommendation to Retain Applicant On Active Duty, Support Statement, NGB Form 22, Retirement Points for Credit, Statement of Service For Computation of Length of Service For Pay Purposes four pages); Oath of Office, Military Personnel, Enlistment / Reenlistment Document, Amy National Guard Retirement Points History Statement (two pages); DD Form 214, and Officer Service Computation For Retirement. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides 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), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides 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, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities' last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification 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. (2) 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. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember's date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. (1) Paragraph 1-23, provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 1-23a, states 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 under DODI 5200.02 and AR 380-67 for reasons that do not involve acts of misconduct for an officer. (3) Paragraph 1-23b, states an officer will normally receive a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service when the officer's military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Paragraph 1-23c, states a discharge under other than honorable conditions is an administrative separation from the service. A discharge certificate will not be issued. An officer will normally receive an under other than honorable conditions when he or she: Resigns for the good of the Service; is dropped from the rolls (DFR) of the Army in accordance with paragraph 5-9; (3) is involuntarily separated due to misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or for the final revocation of a security clearance under DODI 5200.02 and AR 380-67 as a result of an act or acts of misconduct, including misconduct for which punishment was imposed; and, is discharged following conviction by civilian authorities. (5) Chapter 3 prescribes the tasks, rules, and steps for processing voluntary resignations. Except as provided below, any officer of the Active Army or USAR may tender a resignation under provisions of this chapter. The Secretary of the Army or his designee may accept resignations and orders will be issued by direction of the CG, HRC. An officer whose resignation has been accepted will be separated on the date specified in DA's orders or as otherwise directed by the DA. An appropriate discharge certificate as specified by the CG, HRC, will be furnished by the appropriate commander at the time the officer is separated. The date of separation, as specified or directed, will not be changed without prior approval of HQDA nor can valid separation orders be revoked subsequent to the specified or directed date of separation. Except when resignation is under section VI of this chapter, USAR officers in an AGR status or on ADT, ADSW, TTAD and Soldiers on AD pursuant to 10 USC 12304 (Presidential Selected Reserve) will request resignations under the provisions of AR 135-175. Before such a request is submitted, they must be released from their AD status. (6) Paragraph 3-i. An officer separated under this paragraph normally receives characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. (7) Paragraph 3-13 outlines the rules for processing requests for resignation for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by a general court-martial. e. 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 "DFS" as the appropriate code to assign Officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 3-13, in lieu of trial by court-martial. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to general (under honorable conditions) or honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The record indicates the applicant was charged with the commission of offenses punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with a punitive discharge. The applicant voluntarily requested resignation in lieu of trial by general court-martial under the provisions of Chapter 3, AR 600-8-24. The appropriate authority approved the applicant's request with issuance of an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. The applicant did not desire to appear before a board of officers. The applicant requests a change to the narrative reason for separation. Army Regulation 635-5- 1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating officer Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "DFS" as the appropriate code to assign officer Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 3-13, in lieu of trial by court-martial. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. The applicant seeks relief contending, he served for almost 24 years as enlisted and as an officer. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service were carefully considered. The applicant contends, he realizes the mistake he made but it should not cost him everything he worked so hard for and sacrificed so much throughout his career. The service record indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of officer 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 applicant contends, he is remorseful for his actions and if given the opportunity he would make better decisions. This contention is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant's good performance while in the Army. The third party letters were considered by the separation authority. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? NO, the applicant made no diagnostic claim, provided no documents indicating any condition or experience, and DOD and VA medical records are void of any conditions or experiences. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? N/A (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? N/A (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A b. The applicant seeks relief contending, he served for almost 24 years as enlisted and as an officer. However, the service record indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses (bigamy, presenting false evidence, wrongful wear of a ranger tab, larceny, false official statements, plagiarism) which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of officer 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. c. The applicant contends, he realizes the mistake he made but it should not cost him everything he worked so hard for and sacrificed so much throughout his career. The applicant also contends, he is remorseful for his actions and if given the opportunity he would make better decisions. This contention is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued. d. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. However, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. e. Rationale for Decision: (1) The board voted not to change the applicant's characterization of service because of the multiple documented incidents of misconduct that occurred over a period of time. The record indicates the applicant was charged with the commission of offenses punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with a punitive discharge. The applicant voluntarily requested resignation in lieu of trial by general court-martial under the provisions of Chapter 3, AR 600-8- 24. The appropriate authority approved the applicant's request with issuance of an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. The applicant did not desire to appear before a board of officers. (2) The board voted not to change the reason because the reason was determined to be the proper and equitable reason IAW regulations. The applicant requests a change to the narrative reason for separation. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating officer Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "DFS" as the appropriate code to assign officer Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 3-13, in lieu of trial by court-martial. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. (3) Because the characterization and reason were not changed, the SPD/RE codes will not change, as the current codes are consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / 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 AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge BH - Behavioral Health CG - Company Grade Article 15 CID - Criminal Investigation Division ELS - Entry Level Status FG - Field Grade Article 15 GD - General Discharge HS - High School HD - Honorable Discharge IADT - Initial Active Duty Training MP - Military Police MST - Military Sexual Trauma NA - Not applicable NCO - Noncommissioned Officer NIF - Not in File NOS - Not Otherwise Specified OAD - Ordered to Active Duty OMPF - Official Military Personnel File PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE - Reentry SCM - Summary Court Martial SPCM - Special Court Martial SPD - Separation Program Designator TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA - Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20190001859 3