1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 2 August 2019 b. Date Received: 8 August 2019 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under other than honorable conditions) or honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant through counsel seeks relief contending, in effect, he was diagnosed PTSD, Anxiety, ADHD, and depression after two combat deployments and more than twelve- years Army service. He was treated for PTSD by Veterans Affairs (VA) and awarded an evaluation of 70 percent disabling, for a general anxiety disorder, and sleep disturbances. He declined a board of inquiry and submitted his resignation with the understanding he would receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, this issue was a matter of propriety constituting an error. He earned a Bronze Star, two Meritorious Service Medals, five top-block evaluations and earned a Ph.D. while serving for the Office of the Chief of Staff of the Army. He was treated in an arbitrary and capricious manner after 15-years of faithful service despite enduring medical problems. He should have merited a medical evaluation board or medical retirement. 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), notes indicate diagnoses of Personality Disorder. The applicant is 70% service connected for PTSD. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with PTSD. In summary, the applicant has a BH diagnosis that is partially mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 2 October 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: 9 August 2019 c. Separation Facts: Not Complete (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 18 March 2019 (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 9 May 2019, the applicant waived his right to consult with a member of Judge Advocate General's Corp. He obtained civilian counsel. He also elected to waive his right to appear before a board of officers with legally qualified counsel. The applicant further requested an honorable discharge based on overall service record during the past 14 years. 9 May 2019 On, the applicant having been informed that he was being considered for elimination, voluntarily tendered his resignation from the Army pursuant to the provisions of AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4, in lieu of further elimination proceedings. However, he tendered his resignation on the condition that he receive at a minimum a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 29 May 2019, a Board of Inquiry recommended the applicant be involuntarily eliminated from the United States Army based on both misconduct and moral or professional dereliction and derogatory information, with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization of service. On 24 June 2019, the applicant again tendered his conditional resignation as an Officer of the United States Army. He understood that if his resignation was accepted, he respectfully requested an honorable separation and be furnished an honorable discharge certificate and coin. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: On 29 July 2019, The Department of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board reviewed the resignation in lieu of elimination tendered by the applicant. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Army Review Boards) did not accept his resignation that he conditioned upon receiving no worse than a General (Under Honorable Conditions) Discharge. He directed the case be returned to the General Officer Show Cause Authority. In accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-24g, he directed a Board of Inquiry be conducted, unless the applicant tendered an unconditional resignation in lieu of elimination. On 30 July 2019, The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Army Review Boards) determined the applicant will be involuntarily eliminated from the United States Army with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization of service. This elimination is based on both misconduct and moral or professional dereliction (Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b), and derogatory information (Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2c). 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 June 2007 / 3 years / document (s) extending the applicant's term of service to his discharge date are not contained in the available record. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 years / College Graduate / NA c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-4 / 42H, Senior Human Resource Officer / 14 years, 3 months, 28 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG 12 April 2005 to 11 December 2005 / NA ARNG ROTC SMP, 12 December 2005 to 10 May 2007 / HD Appointed 2LT USAR 11 May 2007 to 31 May 2007 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / Hawaii / SWA / Iraq, 17 November 2009 to 7 August 2010 / Afghanistan, 6 August 2013 to 14 January 2014 f. Awards and Decorations: BSM, MSM-2, ARCOM-2, AAM-2, NDSM, ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR-2, MUC g. Performance Ratings: 4 June 2017 to 9 August 2019, Not Qualified, Referred Reports h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: An administrative Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 6 February 2019, for his condescending and disrespectful communication with his battalion commander has seriously deviated from the behavior expected from a Soldier, let alone a field grade officer. An administrative General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 26 February 2019, for repeatedly violating orders and sending disrespectful, threatening communications to and about superior officers. An administrative GOMOR, dated 3 April 2019, for being disrespectful towards a superior commissioned officer and for assaulting a superior commissioned officer. This is the third time he has been reprimanded for disrespect. The applicant a negative counseling statement for misconduct; several other counseling statements for various issues and the way forward raising issues to the 25th ID chain of command being notified of pending separation action. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Clinical and Forensic Consulting, PLC, dated 9 May 2019, revealed the applicant was diagnosed with attention-deficit / hyperactivity disorder, predominantly hyperactive/impulsive presentation, in partial remission (on medication); and other specified personality disorder, with features of narcissistic, paranoid, and obsessive- compulsive personality disorders. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 17 May 2019, shows the applicant was diagnosed with Occupational Problem / Problems Related to Employment (undergoing Board of inquiry) Z56.9; Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD) 301.4 / F60.5; Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (by history); Anxiety Disorder (by history). He met criteria for obsessive- compulsive personality disorder characterized by a strict adherence and preoccupation with an internal sense of orderliness, perfectionism and control of themselves and situations. This interferes with flexibility, interpersonal effectiveness and openness to change. This disorder does not indicate any global decrease in his ability to comport his actions with established rules and DoD regulations, but it's presence is likely to episodically and chronically exacerbate stressful circumstances common in the Army environment, which would likely lead to amplified emotional and behavioral symptoms and reduced functioning for the him, accelerating the recurrence of both over time. Per AR 40-501, OCPD renders him administratively unfit for continued service. The command may choose to pursue administrative separation through AR 600-8-24. He met retention requirements of Chapter 3, AR 40-501 and did not warrant disposition through medical channels of medical administrative actions. He did not meet criteria for MEB / PEB. He met retention standards in accordance with AR 40-501 from a psychological standpoint. Superior PTSD Screening and Treatment document, dated 20 June 2019, relates the applicant was evaluated and diagnosed with PTSD. Superior PTSD Screening and Treatment document, dated 3 December 2019 indicates that the applicant was evaluated and diagnosed with PTSD. M.L., MD, Internal Medicine, Hematology, Oncology Independent Medical Examiner document, dated 26 June 2020, shows that the applicant was diagnosed with ADHD, obsessive compulsive disorder, depression, anxiety, severe adjustment disorder and PTSD. He was prescribed medications his conditions. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages, 16 November 2019); letter to ADRB, several memoranda (43 pages); DD Form 293 (two pages, 2 August 2019); AMHRR documents included discharge orders 212-0006, Superior PTSD Screening and Treatment document; DA photo, officer timelines, OERs, certificates, diplomas, ARCOM certificate, BSM certificate, MSM certificate, Air Command and Staff College diploma, professional paper and photos (157 pages); other documents; email traffic, EO complaint and response (10 pages); applicant's letter to ARBA, request to change provider, applicant's letter to ADRB; applicant's letter to the White House; Chief, Congressional Liaison and Inquiries, response to the applicant; email traffic, additional FOIA request (four pages); email traffic, Request for Investigative Inquiry (16 pages); email traffic open door request; email traffic / with support statement and PTSD diagnosis (four pages); Memorandum for Commander, 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, counseling rebuttal (38 pages); various documents including travel orders, resume, Memorandum, Resignation in Lieu of Elimination Proceedings, verification of military experience and training (13 pages); Memorandum, Review of Medical Documents Marked "Confidential" (48 pages); Memorandum, applicant's conditional resignation (26 pages); applicant seeks opinion on PTSD and adjustment disorder (four pages); PTSD document; medical record (282 pages); support statement; spouse support statement; Memorandum, Board of Inquiry (15 pages); mental health diagnosis documents (five pages); applicant's follow-up letter to ADRB (19 pages); various documents (46 pages); DD Form 293 with brief (45 pages); and applicant's letter to ADRB (11 pages); and additional evidence, M.L. MD, Internal Medicine, Hematology, Oncology Independent Medical Examiner document (ten pages); Conditional RILE (554 pages, part six); additional information; medical document, various documents (190 pages); Clinical and Forensic Consulting, PLC (three pages); two Superior PTSD Screening and Treatment documents; and Mission Action Project, LLC. (29 pages); DD Form 293 (two pages, 2 August 2019) with supporting documents (65 pages); DD Form 293 / with supporting documents (48 pages). Of note, the applicant submitted numerous duplicate supporting documents which were previously listed. 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 "JNC" 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 the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions) or 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 conduct, 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 through counsel seeks relief contending, he was diagnosed PTSD, Anxiety, ADHD, and depression after two combat deployments and more than twelve-years Army service. The record of evidence shows that the applicant submitted several documents which revealed he was diagnosed with PTSD, Anxiety, ADHD, and depression. The applicant further contends, he was treated for PTSD by Veterans Affairs (VA) and awarded an evaluation of 70 percent disabling, for a general anxiety disorder, and sleep disturbances. The available service record contains no evidence he was treated for PTSD by the VA and awarded an evaluation of 70 percent disabling, for a general anxiety disorder, and sleep disturbances. The applicant also contends, he declined a board of inquiry and submitted his resignation with the understanding he would receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, this issue was a matter of propriety constituting an error. The record of evidence shows The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Army Review Boards) did not accept his resignation that he conditioned upon receiving no worse than a General (Under Honorable Conditions) Discharge. He directed the case be returned to the General Officer Show Cause Authority. In accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-24g, he directed a Board of Inquiry be conducted, unless the applicant tendered an unconditional resignation in lieu of elimination. The applicant additionally contends, he earned a Bronze Star, two Meritorious Service Medals, five top-block evaluations and earned a Ph.D. while serving for the Office of the Chief of Staff of the Army. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incident (s) that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. Furthermore, the applicant contends, he was treated in an arbitrary and capricious manner after 15-years of faithful service despite enduring medical problems. 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. Lastly, the applicant contends, he should have merited a medical evaluation board or medical retirement. The record of evidence further shows in a May 2019 behavioral health appointment, the provider state that the applicant asked for an MEB multiple times despite being told he did not meet criteria for a MEB. 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. 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 2 October 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 AR20190011472 7