1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 17 July 2019 b. Date Received: 22 July 2019 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, her discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in eight years and ten months of service with no other adverse action. Numerous recommendations for an honorable discharge from the applicant's chain of command, her request for resignation in lieu of elimination was rejected, the applicant was administratively separated after a Board of Inquiry. During the Board of Inquiry, both the Government and the defense requested Honorable Discharge but the Board members voted for a General (Under Honorable Conditions) Discharge. The repercussions after this non-judicial punishment were immense and felt never-ending. After the 14 December 2017 Article 15 hearing, instead of being allowed to complete a rehabilitative transfer, the applicant was forced to return back to the 1st Cavalry Division Sustainment Brigade. This was perceived as another punishment in itself; the return of a shamed officer, once the HQ Commander, and paraded around the unit as an example of what not to do. The applicant was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Adjustment Disorder and confirmation these diagnoses are combat related. The applicant believed her actions were a result of her mental health digression over the years. In a records review conducted on 23 February 2022, 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: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2B / JNC / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 26 March 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: On 12 February 2018, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the officer Elimination Initiation Memorandum. She elected to submit a request for discharge in lieu of elimination. (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 for misconduct, moral, or professional dereliction, conduct unbecoming of an officer and for receiving adverse information filed in his Army Military Human Resource Record in accordance with AR 600-37, due to the following reasons: Personal misconduct in accordance with (IAW) Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-24, 4-2b(5), Rapid Action Report (RAR) 13 September 2011, for texting sexually explicit pictures of her to a senior noncommissioned officer. Conduct unbecoming an officer IAW AR 600-8-24, 4-2b(8), RAR 13 September 2011, as referenced in the above misconduct. (3) Legal Consultation Date: On 12 February 2018, the applicant submitted a resignation in lieu of elimination. On 17 July 2018, the applicant's Resignation in Lieu of Elimination was denied and the applicant was directed to appear before a Board of Inquiry (BOI). (4) Board of Inquiry (BOI): On 7 September 2018, the Board of Inquiry convened and the applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended the applicant's separated with characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). (5) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 22 February 2018, the chain of command recommends the applicant's request to resign in lieu of elimination be approved, and she be discharged from the Unites States Army with an honorable characterization of service. On 27 September 2018, the GOSCA recommended disapproval of the applicant's request for retention and recommended the applicant be involuntarily eliminated from service / General (Under Honorable Conditions). (6) DA Board of Review for Eliminations: On 20 July 2018, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) (DASA (RB) did not accept the request for Resignation in Lieu of Elimination. The DASA (RB) directed this case be returned to the General Officer Show Cause Authority and directed a Board of Inquiry be conducted. On 4 December 2018, the Army Board of Review for Eliminations considered the GOSCA's request to involuntary separate the applicant for substandard performance in accordance with AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b. (7) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 27 September 2018 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 14 May 2010 / 4 years (OAD) b. Age at Appointment: / Education: 22 / Baccalaureate Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-3 / 92A 5P, QM General / 8 years, 10 months, 10 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (4 April 2011 - 3 April 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, AAM-2, MUC, NDSM, GWOTSM, ACM-2CS, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: 2 June 2017 - 14 December 2017 / Not Qualified 15 December 2017 - 15 July 2018 / Highly Qualified 16 July 2018 - 26 March 2019 / Highly Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 5 March 2018, reflects the applicant had no duty limitations due to behavioral health reasons. The applicant currently met medical retention standards and was cleared for administrative action. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. Mental Status Evaluation, dated 14 February 2019, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible with a clear thinking process. FG Article 15, dated 14 December 2017, for wrongfully texting sexually explicit pictures and wrongfully having communication of a sexual nature via text message with the First Sergeant (on or about 18 October 2006). The punishment consisted of: forfeiture of $2,828 pay per month for two months, $1414 pay per month for two months (suspended) and a written reprimand. Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers, dated 20 October 2017, reflects the investigating officer found: She did violate AR 600-20, 4-14b as applied to the familiarity between two Soldiers of a different grade. She explicitly sent digital communications sexual in content to another Soldier that violated the Good Order and Discipline between an Officer and a Senior Noncommissioned Officer. As for Article 134 (Adultery) Article 62 UCMJ, there is no evidence provided indicating actual sexual relationship existed. Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a VA rating decision, dated 19 June 2019 which reflects the applicant was rated 70 percent service connected for PTSD. Report of Medical History, dated 2 March 2018, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: anxiety, depression, post-partum and insomnia. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; DD Form 214; four third-party letters; VA benefits letter with rating decision. 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. A separation under general (under honorable conditions) normally appropriate when an officer: Submits an unqualified resignation; Separated based on misconduct; discharged for physical disability resulting from intentional misconduct or neglect; and, for final revocation of a security clearance. (4) Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty. (5) Paragraph 4-2b, prescribes for the elimination of an officer for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interests of national security. (6) Paragraph 4-24a states an officer identified for elimination may, at any time during or prior to the final action in the elimination case elect one of the following options: (1) Submit a resignation in lieu of elimination; (2) request a discharge in lieu of elimination; and, Apply for retirement in lieu of elimination if otherwise eligible. 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 "JNC" 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. 8. SUMMARY 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 to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends she suffered from undiagnosed with PTSD, which affected her behavior and led to her discharge. The applicant provided several medical documents indicating she was diagnosed with PTSD. The applicant provided a VA rating decision, dated 19 June 2019, which reflects the applicant was rated 70 percent service connected for PTSD. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 14 February 2019, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The applicant contends she was forced to return back to her unit as a shamed former Headquarters Commander which was perceived as another punishment and paraded around the unit as an example of what not to do. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Army Regulation 600-8-24, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization of service. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. 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 the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation. The applicant held off-post, in-service diagnoses of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), Adjustment, Unspecified Anxiety, and PTSD. The applicant reported a MST during the Chapter MSE. Post- service, the applicant is service connected for PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant was diagnosed off-post with MDD, Adjustment Disorder, Unspecified Anxiety, and PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor determined that the medical conditions and experience does not mitigate the basis of separation. The applicant endorsed behavioral health treatment with depression related post-partum, marriage, separation, stress, work, and emotional control issues on her separation physical. The applicant had an S1 at discharge, there were no behavioral health limitations/profiles; the applicant was fit. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board's application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that any of the applicant's medical conditions completely outweighed the basis for applicant's separation. b. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant contends she was suffering from undiagnosed PTSD, which led to her discharge. The Board considered this contention as the applicant is service connected for PTSD. (2) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board determined the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant's service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By conduct unbecoming an officer and texting sexually explicit pictures of her to a senior noncommissioned officer, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (3) The applicant contends she was forced to return back to her unit as a shamed former Headquarters Commander which was perceived as another punishment. The Board determined the applicant's command contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. (4) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Army Regulation 600-8-24, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization of service. (5) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. 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 MDD, Adjustment Disorder, Unspecified Anxiety, and PTSD did not mitigate the offenses of conduct unbecoming an officer and texting sexually explicit pictures of her to a senior noncommissioned officer. 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 MDD - Major Depressive Disorder 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 AR20190010922 3