1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 25 August 2019 b. Date Received: 10 September 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is bad conduct discharge. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, there was honorable service for over 13 years, including two deployments. The misconduct which led to the separation was due to financial hardship and the applicant's pride prevented the applicant from requesting help. In a records review conducted on 4 May 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: Court-Martial, Other / AR 635-200, Chapter 3 / JJD / RE-4 / Bad Conduct b. Date of Discharge: 17 May 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) Pursuant to Special Court-Martial Empowered to Adjudge a Bad-Conduct Discharge: As announced by Special Court-Martial Order Number 6, dated 30 April 2018, the applicant pled guilty and was found guilty of stealing currency of a value less than $500, on three separate occasions and attempting to steal currency of value a value less than $500 on or about 29 July 2017, the property of Navy Federal Credit Union. (2) Adjudged Sentence: Reduction to the grade of specialist/E-4, hard labor without confinement for 45 days, and discharge from the service with a Bad-Conduct Discharge. (3) Date/Sentence Approved: 30 April 2018, except for that portion of the sentence pertaining to a Bad-Conduct Discharge, will be executed. (4) Appellate Reviews: NIF (5) Date Sentence of BCD Ordered Executed: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 21 August 2015 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / 3-years College / 96 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-7 / 11B1P, Infantryman / 14 years, 2 months, 8 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 4 November 2004 - 20 August 2015 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Iraq (13 January 2006 - 23 February 2007), Afghanistan (15 January 2011 - 29 December 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: BSM, ARCOM-3, AAM-3, NATO MDL, AFAM, JMUA, USNUC, VUA, ASUA, AGCM-4, NDSM, GWOTSM, ACM-CS-2, ICM-CS-2, NCOPDR-3, ASR, OSR-3, CIB, Expert Infantryman Badge, Pathfinder Badge, Parachutist Badge, Air Assault Badge, Expert Marksmanship Badge-Carbine Bar, Driver and Mechanic Badge-Driver Wheeled Vehicle(s) Clasp g. Performance Ratings: 1 February 2008 - 31 January 2009 / Fully Capable 1 February 2009 - 31 January 2010 / Among The Best 1 February 2010 - 31 January 2011 / Among The Best 1 February 2011 - 31 January 2012 / Among The Best 1 February 2012 - 13 May 2012 / Among The Best 15 July 2012 - 27 October 2012 / Among The Best 28 October 2012 - 27 October 2013 / Among The Best 28 October 2013 - 7 March 2014 / Among The Best 7 March 2014 - 6 March 2015 / Among The Best 7 March 2014 - 6 March 2015 / Among The Best 7 March 2015 - 2 December 2015 / Among The Best 3 December 2015 - 1 December 2016 / Most Qualified 2 December 2016 - 22 September 2017 / Not Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: See SCMO Number 6 as described in item 3c(1). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149, DD Form 214, SCMO Number 6, dated 30 April 2018, Marriage License, Letters of Support-4, Applicant's Request for Retention 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) Paragraph 3-7c states Under other-than-honorable-conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (5) Section IV establishes policy and procedures for separating members with a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge; and provides that a Soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial; and that the appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the ADRB to be established facts, issues relating to the applicant's innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the ADRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment. 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 record of service (AMHRR), the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant contends there was honorable service for over 13 years, including two deployments. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of the service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant contends the misconduct which led to the separation was due to financial hardship. The applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. 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 an in-service diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder, and the applicant asserts PTSD in a self-authored statement. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held an in-service diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder. While the applicant asserts PTSD, this has not been reinforced by a diagnoses from a qualified medical professional. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor opined, after applying liberal consideration, that the medical conditions do not mitigate the basis of separation. Adjustment Disorder does not impair cognitive processes and even if PTSD is accepted at face value, trauma is not associated with larceny. (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 of Adjustment Disorder nor asserted PTSD completely outweighed the larceny basis for applicant's separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends there was honorable service for over 13 years, including two deployments. 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 committing larceny, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation (2) The applicant contends the misconduct which led to the separation was due to financial hardship. The Board considered this contention, but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with financial issues, and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. The Board concluded that the applicant committing larceny is not an acceptable response to dealing with financial issues, thus the applicant was properly and equitably discharged 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 diagnosis and un-diagnosed PTSD did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of larceny. 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 AR20190014224 1