1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 22 May 2019 b. Date Received: 20 June 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). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge was based on an investigation created by his ex-wife. He got into trouble for enlisting a friend in the military; however, the main reason for his trouble was threatening his wife. He was furious because she took all of his money. He gave up on the military because the military gave up on him. His station commander and fellow recruiter testified at his divorce hearing. He served in the military for 17 years and deployed multiple times. His faithful service outweighs this isolated incident. He suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and is receiving counseling. In a records review conducted on 15 October 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 9 April 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 26 March 2014 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 February 2008 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 / 2 years College / 116 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 13D, Field Artillery Automation / 13 years, 10 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 3 December 1993 - 4 March 1996 / HD RA, 17 May 2000 - 17 February 2008 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii, Korea, SWA / Afghanistan (29 April 2004 - 30 April 2005), Iraq (12 December 2007 - 21 May 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ICM-CS-2, BSM, ARCOM-2, AAM-2, MUC, AGCM-3, NDSM-BSS, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-5, SBRB, g. Performance Ratings: January 2003 - March 2003 / Among The Best April 2003 - March 2004 / Among The Best April 2004 - March 2005 / Fully Capable April 2005 - March 2006 / Among The Best 1 April 2006 - 8 January 2007 / Among The Best 9 January 2008 - 15 October 2008 / Among The Best 16 October 2008 - 31 January 2009 / Among The Best 19 June 2010 - 18 June 2011 / Among The Best 19 June 2012 - 18 June 2013 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: An AR 15-6 Investigation was conducted to determine whether the applicant violated USAREC Regulation 600-25 CH 2-1b, Unauthorized Relationships, in that the applicant place a future Soldier on his personal vehicle insurance with USAA; whether the applicant violated USAREC Regulation 600-25, CH 2-1a (1) Sexual Contact, in that the applicant had a prohibited, romantic, and or sexual relationship with a future Soldier; whether the applicant violated Article 134 UCMJ, Adultery; whether the applicant violated Article 134 UCMJ, Communicating a Threat, in that he verbally threaten his wife and children with serious bodily harm and death; and to determine if the applicant violate Article 128 UCMJ, Simple Assault, in that he caused his wife to fear for her life and personal safety by the use of threatening words and gestures. The investigating officer determine the future Soldier was 17 and in high school when she met the applicant and this made her off limits to any U.S. Army Recruiter except for the purpose of recruiting operations. The applicant also cosigned a loan and paid for the future Soldier's insurance. This constituted an unauthorized relationship; the threats made by the applicant were substantiated by recordings which depicted a man both capable and willing to do harm at the time the recordings were made and the applicant admitted he was the man in the recording; and the applicant's wife had a genuine fear for her safety and the safety of her children. She was worried once the applicant learned she had come forward with evidence he would attempt to harm her and her children. The investigator recommended a military protective order be immediately imposed on the applicant and that he be prohibited from any contact with his wife and children; the applicant be tried by summary court-martial for communicating a threat and having an unauthorized relationship; a dishonorable discharge; forfeiture of all pay and allowances; confinement for 30 days; and be command referred for anger management counseling. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provides a letter from the Department of Veteran Affairs, dated 30 April 2020, which reflects the applicant was granted a 70-percent service-connected disability rating for PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, DD Form 214, Personal Statement, Court documents, College Transcripts, Letter from the Department of Veteran Affairs, dated 30 April 2020 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states he has a Bachelor's degree in Criminal Justice and is recruiter for a retail company. He is enrolled in a MBA Program seeking a degree in Human Resources. He is in counseling for PTSD. 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 harasment. 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), dated 25 September 2019, 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 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Paragraph 3-7c states Under other-than-honorable-conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (5) 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. (6) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record. (7) 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. 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's AMHRR record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant requests an upgrade to general, under honorable conditions. The applicant contends his discharge was based on an investigation created by his ex-wife. He got into trouble for enlisting a friend in the military; however, the main reason for his trouble was threatening his wife. He was furious because she took all of his money. The applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends he served in the military for 17 years and deployed multiple times. His faithful service outweighs this isolated incident. 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. He suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and is receiving counseling. The applicant provides a letter from the Department of Veteran Affairs, dated 30 April 2020, which reflects the applicant was granted a 70-percent service-connected disability rating for PTSD. 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? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed DoD and VA medical records and found the applicant did not hold an in-service behavioral health diagnosis but attended Family Advocacy Program (FAP) as the offender of intimate partner violence (IPV). Post-service, the applicant is service-connected for PTSD with additional diagnoses of Unspecified Depressive Disorder and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD), which, in the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor could potentially mitigate the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant was determined to be the offender of IPV. A review of the VA medical records and documentation indicates that the BH condition, which could mitigate the basis for discharge, clearly supports that the trauma symptoms were not present in-service and has service- connected the applicant for PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. Despite the ADRB's application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that PTSD, Unspecific Depressive Disorder, and GAD do not mitigate the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. They do not mitigate domestic violence to include threatening to kill others or an unauthorized relationship with an underage recruit. Specifically, the behavior was not uncharacteristic given admission of previous domestic violence, the applicant could coherently discuss the events to include stating he was set-up, the victim was not accidental, and the event was not in reaction to a situation recreating trauma. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the ADRB's application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the applicant's domestic violence and unauthorized relationship with an underage recruit outweighed the applicant's PTSD, Unspecified Depressive Disorder, and GAD for the reasons listed in (3) above. b. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant contends his discharge was based on an investigation created by his ex-wife. He got into trouble for enlisting a friend in the military; however, the main reason for his trouble was threatening his wife. He was furious because she took all of his money. The Board determined the applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and did not find documentation indicating he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. The applicant did not provide any fact or circumstance that would mitigate the improper relationship with an underage recruit or communicating a threat. (2) The applicant contends he served in the military for 17 years and deployed multiple times. His faithful service outweighs this isolated incident. The applicant's service accomplishments, combat tours, and length 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, but the ADRB found they do not outweigh the seriousness of the offenses. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant's contentions that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant's characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration, the applicant's PTSD, Unspecified Depressive Disorder, and GAD did not mitigate the offenses of domestic violence or unauthorized relationship with an underage recruit. The applicant did not supply sufficient independent corroborating evidence to support contentions, and 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. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, and the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is 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 / SPD Code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority 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 N/A - Not applicable NCO - Noncommissioned Officer NIF - Not in File NOS - Not Otherwise Specified OAD - Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) - Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF - Official Military Personnel File PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE - Re-entry 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 AR20190010832 1