1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 17 March 2019 b. Date Received: 19 April 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident during approximately 18 years of service. The applicant received numerous awards and decorations as enlisted Soldier to becoming an officer. The applicant incurred medical and PTSD issues. The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) determined the applicant would be medically retired with a 30 percent disabling rating, but was discharged with an under other than honorable discharge. The applicant was punished three times in the military as well as being punished on the civilian side. 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), no information on applicant. The applicant is not service-connected from the VA. The VA has diagnosed the applicant with PTSD. In summary, the applicant does not have a BH diagnosis that is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 19 August 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 608-8-24, Paragraphs 4-2b / JNC / NA / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 7 April 2004 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 4 November 2002 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was required to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2(b) due to his misconduct, moral, or professional dereliction. He was notified of the following reasons: On or about 4 August 2001 and continuing until around February 2002, applicant wrongfully appropriated and transferred without authority the names, birth dates, and social security numbers of six people to credit card issuers. The intent was to obtain access to the additional credit to pay your personal debts and expenses. The Applicant obtained eight credit cards in the names of other people, used six of those credit cards and transferred a total of $46,770.22 of his personal debt and expenses to those credit cards between 4 August 2001 and February 2002. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: The evidence of record does not contain the applicant's elections of rights and government regularity is presumed in the discharge process. (5) Administrative Separation Board / BOI: On 4 November 2002, The Commanding General; Headquarters, US Army Recruiting Command, Fort Knox, KY 40121-2726, directed a Field Board of Inquiry (BOI) be convened and the applicant be required to show cause for retention on active duty. On 31 January 2003, the applicant was notified to appear before a BOI and advised of his rights. On 5 March 2003, a Board of Inquiry (BOI) convened, the applicant appeared with counsel. The BOI recommended that the applicant be eliminated from the Service with issuance of an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions) characterization of service. On 4 April 2003, The Commanding General; Headquarters, US Army Recruiting Command, Fort Knox, KY 40121-2726, recommended approval of the BOI results concerning the applicant. He further recommended issuance of an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. On 6 May 2003, The Commanding General; Headquarters, US Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, VA 23651-1047, reviewed the BOI, the board's findings and recommendations and the applicant's appeal. Based on his review, he recommended approval of the BOI's recommendations. He further recommended the applicant's elimination with issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: The Department of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board reviewing the applicant's case and The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Army Review Boards) documentation is not contained in the available record and government regularity is presumed in the discharge process. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 9 June 1993 / NIF b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 years / Master's Degree / NA c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-3 / 31A, Military Police / 17 years / 6 months, 1 day d. Prior Service / Characterizations: Applicant's prior service dates are not contained in the available record. e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Haiti / Korea / Panama f. Awards and Decorations: DMSM, MSM-4, JSCM, ARCOM-4, AAM-6, AFEM, GWOTSM, HSM-3, NOPDR, KDSM, ASR, OSR, UNM, JMUA-2, ASUA-3, CGMUC, NATO MDL g. Performance Ratings: 1 October 1997 to 14 May 2002, Best Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: None i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: Civilian confinement for 312 days, 20 May 2003 to 2 April 2004. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); the applicant states in his application his service documents are on file, they include awards, officer record brief, officer evaluation reports and education. 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 officer Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b, unacceptable conduct. 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 honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant's available record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the complete facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. However, the applicant's record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature. This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and government regularity is presumed in the discharge process. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, by reason of unacceptable misconduct, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Barring evidence to the contrary, the presumption of government regularity prevails as all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Further, the DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of JNC (i.e., unacceptable misconduct, with a reentry eligibility (RE) code of NA. The available record confirms 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's unacceptable conduct diminished the quality of his service below meriting a general or an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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 "JNC" as the appropriate code to assign officer Soldiers, who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, unacceptable conduct. The regulation further stipulates no deviation is authorized. The applicant seeks relief contending, his discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident during approximately 18 years of service. The service record indicates the applicant committed many 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 applicant further contends, he received numerous awards and decorations as enlisted Soldier to becoming an officer. 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 also contends, he incurred medical and PTSD issues. The service record contains no evidence of PTSD diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. The applicant additionally contends, his Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) determined he would be medically retired with a 30 percent disabling rating, but was discharged with an under other than honorable discharge. Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 1-25a, in pertinent part, stipulates that a commissioned or warrant officer under investigation for an offense chargeable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) that could result in dismissal or punitive discharge may not be referred for or continue disability processing. Lastly, the applicant contends, he was punished three times in the military as well as being punished on the civilian side. 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. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it is his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. Based on the available record, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 19 August 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 AR20190006390 1