1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 15 June 2019 b. Date Received: 2 October 2019 c. Counsel: Yes 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: 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, the discharge was procedurally defective, not fair, and unfair now. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 14 October 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: 17 January 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 21 December 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed to show cause for retention on active duty under the provision of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2. b. (5) Acts of Personal Misconduct, paragraph 4-2 b (8) Conduct Unbecoming an Officer, and paragraph 4-2.c(5) Derogatory Information in the form of a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) file in applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) in accordance with AR 600-37, due to the following reasons: On or about 11 January 2017, falsified an APFT Scorecard; In May of 2017, failed to accurately report the status of a M982 round to leadership; and On 5 July 2017, received a GOMOR for personal misconduct which was subsequently filed in applicant’s OMPF. (3) Legal Consultation Date: On 14 August 2018, the applicant in lieu of electing an administrative board for which applicant was entitled, requested an honorable discharge from the Army, and if granted, would waive applicant’s right to any administrative board action. (4) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: 21 December 2017 / Honorable (5) DA Board of Review for Eliminations: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 6 December 2018, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards), having viewed the Probationary Officer Elimination Case of the applicant, determined the applicant would be involuntarily eliminated from the United States Army with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service. The elimination was based on misconduct and moral or professional dereliction (Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b), derogatory information (Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2c), and substandard performance of duty (Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2a). 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 22 May 2014 / NIF b. Age at Enlistment / Education: 27 / 14 years c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-2 / 13A, Field Artillery / 13 years, 4 months, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USMC, 12 September 2005 to 13 June 2010 / HD USMCCG, 14 June 2010 to 28 June 2010 / NA ARNG, 29 June 2010 to 8 May 2014 / HD (Discharged on Appointment as a Commissioned Officer) USARCG, 9 May 2014 to 21 May 2014 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (30 March 2015 to 26 July 2015 and 26 October 2017 to 8 July 2018) and Kuwait during a prior period of service (29 June 2008 to 7 September 2008). f. Awards and Decorations: MSM, ARCOM, AAM, USNAM, NUC, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ACM-2CS, ASR, OSR, USNSSDR, NATOMDL-3 g. Performance Ratings: 16 May 2014 to 5 February 2016, Most Qualified 6 February 2016 to 5 February 2017, Most Qualified 6 February 2017 to 30 June 2017, Highly Qualified 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018, Qualified 1 July 2018 to 17 January 2019, Highly Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, which was issued on 6 July 2017, for having falsified an APFT Scorecard and failing to accurately report the status of a M982 round to leadership. It was noted that applicant’s lack of integrity caused subordinates to lose confidence in applicant’s character and cause the commander to seriously question the applicant’s ability to continue in the command. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Military Records; letters of support; and legal brief. 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 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 AMHRR indicates separation action was initiated against the applicant for falsifying his APFT Scorecard; failing to accurately report the status of a M982 round to leadership; and receiving a GOMOR for personal misconduct which was subsequently filed in applicant’s OMPF. The applicant was separated under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b, with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Unacceptable Conduct,” and the separation code is “JNC.” The applicant seeks relief contending the discharge was procedurally defective, not fair, and unfair now. The applicant’s contentions were noted; however, it should be noted, the applicant committed several discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant’s numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. 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 found that the applicant has the following potentially mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Chronic Adjustment Disorder (DO). (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the VA has established service connection for the applicant's diagnosis of Chronic Adjustment DO (70% SC). (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that there are no mitigating BH conditions. While the applicant has been 70% service connected for Chronic Adjustment DO (CAD) by the VA, this condition does not mitigate falsifying an APFT card given that this condition does not affect one’s ability to understand the difference between right and wrong and act in accordance with the right. This condition (CAD) also does not mitigate applicant’s failure to report the status of a M982 round as amnesia and/or deficits in memory are not part of the natural history or sequelae of this condition. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board considered the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Chronic Adjustment DO outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – falsifying an APFT card, failure to report the status of M982 round, and personal misconduct – for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): The applicant seeks relief contending the discharge was procedurally defective, not fair, and unfair now. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant’s discharge is appropriate. The applicant’s misconduct is not mitigated by the Chronic Adjustment DO or an experience; therefore, the applicant’s discharge is proper a equitable as the misconduct is unacceptable conduct of an Officer. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering 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 Chronic Adjustment DO did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of falsifying an APFT card, failure to report the status of a M982 round, and personal misconduct. 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 AR20190013074 1