1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 4 August 2019 b. Date Received: 9 August 2019 c. Counsel: None 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 and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident for having an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate Soldier. The applicant contends having honorable service including three combat tours. The applicant had no other adverse actions during applicant’s service. In a records review conducted on 11 March 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General, Under Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 15 January 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 8 September 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant was accused of having inappropriate relationships with former AIT Soldiers. A 15-6 Investigation was initiated and enough evidence was found to support the allegation the applicant had an inappropriate relationship with PVT M and PFC R. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 8 September 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 23 November 2015, an Administrative Separation Board found, by a preponderance of the evidence, the applicant had inappropriate relationships by using position of authority; used position for personal gain, violation of NCO creed; and was not 100-percent truthful with the testimony. The Board recommended the applicant be separated from the Army with a characterization of service, Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 7 December 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 10 October 2012 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / 2 years of college / 95 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-7 / 74D40, Chemical Operations Specialist / 14 years, 7 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 9 January 2002 – 9 October 2012 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Iraq, (14 February 2003 – 17 June 2003), (7 August 2007 – 23 October 2008), (16 April 2009 – 22 November 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-CS-4, MSM, ARCOM-4, AAM-3, MUC, USA USAF PUC, AGCM-4, NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR-3, ASR, OSR-2, CAB, Senior Parachutist Badge, Parachutist Badge, Air Assault Badge, Driver and Mechanic Badge-Wheeled Vehicle(s) Clasp g. Performance Ratings: October 2004 – September 2005 / Among The Best October 2005 – January 2006 / Fully Capable 1 February 2006 – 31 January 2007 / Among The Best 1 February 2007 – 30 September 2007 / Among The Best 9 September 2007 – 31 March 2008 / Among The Best 1 April 2008 – 28 February 2009 / Among The Best 1 March 2009 – 28 February 2010 / Among The Best 1 March 2010 – 28 February 2011 / Among The Best 1 March 2011 – 31 October 2011 / Among The Best 1 November 2011 – 31 October 2012 / Among The Best 1 November 2012 – 31 October 2013 / Among The Best 1 November 2013 – 9 June 2014 / Among The Best 10 June 2014 – 22 June 2015 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: GOMOR, dated 21 August 2015, reflects the applicant flew to Jacksonville, Florida to visit PV2 M, who had recently graduated from AIT at Fort Leonard Wood, PV2 M was a member of the applicant’s platoon. During the visit the applicant engaged in sexual intercourse with PV2 M. After the visit the applicant continued to correspond with PV2 M by telephone and text messages. Several weeks later, on 19 December, the applicant drove to Wisconsin to visit PFC R, another recent AIT graduate from the applicant’s platoon. During the visit the applicant attempted to initiate a romantic relationship with PFC R. The applicant purposely initiated contact with both Soldiers immediately after they graduated AIT, using applicant’s official position to obtain their contact information and abused applicant’s position of trust as a NCO to coerce them to enter into a personal relationship with applicant. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 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), 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) 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. (5) 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. (6) 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. 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 “JKQ” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). 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’s AMHRR record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant requests the narrative reason for the discharge be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Misconduct (Serious Offense),” and the separation code is “JKQ.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635- 5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends the discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident for having an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate Soldier. The discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends having honorable service including three combat tours. The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of applicant’s service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. 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, applicant submissions and third party statements, and found the applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder and Anxiety Disorder, which, in the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, after applying liberal consideration, could potentially mitigate a discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board’s Medical Advisor found the applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder and Anxiety Disorder during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor opined that the medical conditions of Adjustment Disorder and Anxiety Disorder do not mitigate having inappropriate relationships with former AIT Soldiers, the basis of separation. (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 Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention during proceedings. The Board found that the applicant’s service, given the nature of the misconduct, having inappropriate relationships with former AIT Soldiers, was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge, ultimately the Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends having honorable service including three combat tours. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant’s willingness to serve and considered this contention during board proceedings, However, 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 having inappropriate relationships with former AIT Soldiers, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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 contention(s) 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 of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder and Anxiety Disorder, did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of having inappropriate relationships with former AIT Soldiers. 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, as 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 AR20190011016 1