1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 September 2019 b. Date Received: 30 September 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, an upgrade will allow him the opportunity for retirement after a 20-year record. The applicant believes he merits an upgrade based on the amount of awards, excellent NCO evaluations and his overseas service. 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 Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood; Child Abuse, suspected, initial encounter. The applicant is not service- connected from the VA. The VA has also 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 28 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635- 200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 23 January 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): On 26 September 2017, the applicant was charged with: Charge I: Violation of Article 89, UCMJ: Specification 1: The applicant did on one or more occasions, between on or about 10 June 2015 and on or about 19 September 2016, behave himself with disrespect toward 1LT S. O., his superior commissioned officer, then known by the accused to be his superior commissioned officer, by communicating to her "pantyhose on you then tie you up and ballgag you then spank you a bit," or words to that effect. Specification 2: The applicant did on one or more occasions, between on or about 10 June 2015 and on or about 19 September 2016, behave himself with disrespect toward 1LT S. O., his superior commissioned officer, then known by the accused to be his superior commissioned officer, by communicating to her "pantyhose on you then tie you up and ballgag you then spank you a bit," or words to that effect. Specification 3: The applicant did, on one or more occasions, between on or about 21 July 2015, and on or about 30 July 2015, behave himself with disrespect toward 1LT L. W., his superior commissioned officer, then known by the accused to be his superior commissioned officer, by communicating to her "pantyhose on you then tie you up and ballgag you then spank you II bit," or words to that effect. Specification 4: The applicant did, on one or more occasions between on or about 1 November 2014 and on or about 31 December 2015, behave himself with disrespect toward 1LT K. L., his superior commissioned officer, then known by the accused to be his superior commissioned officer, by communicating to her "pantyhose on you then tie you up and ballgag you then spank you a bit," or words to that effect. Specification 5: The applicant did, on one or more occasions, between on or about 1 June 2015 and on or about 26 July 2015, behave himself with disrespect toward 1LT M. F., his superior commissioned officer, then known by the accused to be his superior commissioned officer, by communicating to her "pantyhose on you then tie you up and ballgag you then spank you a bit," or words to that effect. Specification 6: The applicant did, on one or more occasions, between on or about 01 June 2015 and on or about 26 July 2015, behave himself with disrespect toward 1LT M. F., his superior commissioned officer, then known by the accused to be his superior commissioned officer, by communicating to her "pantyhose on you then tie you up and ballgag you then spank you a bit," or words to that effect. Specification 7: The applicant did, on one or more occasions, a between on or about 26 July 2015, and on or about 13 November 2015, behave himself with disrespect toward 1LT S. A., his superior commissioned officer, then known by the accused to be his superior commissioned officer, by messaging her "pantyhose on you then tie you up and ballgag you then spank you a bit," or words to that effect. Specification 8: The applicant did, on one or more occasions, between on or about 26 July 2015, and on or about 13 November 2015, behave himself with disrespect toward 1LT S. A., his superior commissioned officer, then known by the accused to be his superior commissioned officer, by messaging her "pantyhose on you then tie you up and ballgag you then spank you a bit," or words to that effect. Charge II: Violation of Article 92, UCMJ: Specification 1: The applicant did on one or more occasions, between 16 December 2015, and 21 August 2016, violate a lawful general order, to wit: Commanding General Policy Letter 21, dated 16 December 2015, by wrongfully sexually harassing 1LT S. O. Specification 2: The applicant did on one or more occasions, between 16 December 2015, and 21 August 2016, violate a lawful general order, to wit: Commanding General Policy Letter 21, dated 16 December 2015, by wrongfully sexually harassing 1LT S. A. Specification 3: The applicant did on one or more occasions, between 16 December 2015, and 21 August 2016, violate a lawful general order, to wit: Commanding General Policy Letter 21, dated 16 December 2015, by wrongfully sexually harassing 1LT K. L. Charge Ill: Violation of Article 107, UCMJ: The Specification: The applicant did, on or about 20 October 2016, with intent to deceive, make to Special Agent A. H., an official statement, to wit: "no" when asked if he used the name W. ., which statement was totally false, and was then known by the applicant to be so false. Charge IV: Violation of Article 120a, UCMJ: Specification 1: The applicant, who knew or should have known that 1LT S. O. would be placed in reasonable fear of bodily harm to herself did from on or about 1 June 2015 to on or about 21 September 2016, wrongfully engage in a course of conduct directed at 1LT S. O., to wit: sending threatening messages, thereby inducing in 1LT S. O. a reasonable fear of bodily harm to herself. Specification 2: The applicant, who knew or should have known that 1LT S. A. would be placed in reasonable fear of bodily harm to herself did, from on or about 1 June 2015 to on or about 3 May 2016, wrongfully engage in a course of conduct directed at 1LT S. A., to wit: sending threatening messages, thereby inducing in 1LT S. A. a reasonable fear of bodily harm to herself. Specification 3: the applicant, who knew or should have known that SSG R. G. would be placed in reasonable fear of bodily harm to herself did, from on or about 1 April 2016 to on or about 31 May 2016, wrongfully engage in a course of conduct directed at SSG R. G., to wit: sending harassing messages, thereby inducing in SSG R. G. a reasonable fear of bodily harm to herself. Charge V: Violation of Article 134, UCMJ: Specification 1: The applicant did, between on or about 1 October 2014 and 15 December 2015, wrongfully sexually harass 1LT K.L., such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces. Specification 2: The applicant did, between on or about 1 June 2015 and 15 December 2015, wrongfully sexually harass 1LT S. O., such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces. Specification 3: The applicant did between on or about 1 February 2015 and 15 December 2015, wrongfully sexually harass 1LT S. A., such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 11 December 2017 (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. (4) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (5) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 9 January 2018 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 May 2011 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 32 / some college / 109 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 25Q10, Multichannel Transmission Systems Operator-Maintainer / 21 years, 5 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 9 September 1997 - 13 March 2001 / HD RA, 14 March 2001 - 22 July 2003 / HD RA, 23 July 2003 - 7 June 2007 / HD RA, 8 June 2007 - 20 March 2009 / HD RA, 21 March 2009 - 19 May 2011 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Afghanistan (12 February 2008 - 9 May 2009); Iraq (28 February 2003 - 9 February 2004; 23 August 2005 - 4 September 2006); Kuwait (1 September 2000 - 2 January 2001); Saudi Arabia (1 March 1999 - 10 July 1999) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ICM-2CS, ARCOM-4, AAM-3, JMUA, MUC-2, AGCM-6, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-4, NATOMDL, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 1 September 2010 - 31 August 2011 / Among The Best 1 September 2011 - 19 May 2012 / Marginal 20 May 2012 - 19 May 2013 / Fully Capable 12 June 2013 -11 June 2014 / Among The Best 20 May 2014 - 19 May 2015 / Among The Best 20 May 2015 - 19 May 2016 / Qualified 20 May 2016 - 18 October 2016 / Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c. Military Police Report, dated 25 January 2015, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Trespassing (2ND Degree) (On Post); Theft of Private Property (3RD Degree) (On Post). Law Enforcement Report - Final, dated 22 January 2018, reflects an MPI investigation reflects the applicant was reported to have stalked and harassed several *female Soldiers. Several persons [redacted] stated they had received sexually harassing messages from the Facebook account "WD". SSG [redacted] stated the applicant admitted to her he was "WD". The applicant waived his rights to legal counsel and denied sending the sexually harassing messages. The forensic examination of the applicant's digital media revealed the applicant used his personal electronic devices to log in to the Facebook account "WD". Trial Counsel opined probable cause existed to believe the applicant committed the offenses of Harassing Communications and Stalking. No further investigative activity was needed. There was sufficient evidence to provide to command for consideration of action. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; DD Form 214. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Army policy states that although an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable conditions. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. The applicant, in consultation with legal counsel voluntarily requested, in writing, a discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense, and he indicated he understood he could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veterans' benefits. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. His record documents no acts of significant achievement or valor and did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority at the time of discharge. The applicant contends that he had good service which included three combat tours. 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. The applicant contends and upgrade will allow him the opportunity for retirement. However, the issue the applicant submitted is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued. Further, the applicant's request does not fall within the purview of this Board. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. 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. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 28 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 / 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 AR20190012757 1