1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 30 September 2019 b. Date Received: 20 November 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is honorable. The applicant requests a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge was improper because the case presented did not find the applicant committed adultery or had an inappropriate relationship. The accusing parties skirmishing sworn statements were deceitfully dismissed by the investigating officer in the recommendation to the legal parties. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 24 August 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 608-8-24, Paragraph 4-2b / JNC / NA / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 30 January 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant, a married man, engaged in an adulterous relationship with the wife of a noncommissioned officer; made a false official statement to an investigating officer; committed conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman by threatening to tell everyone Mrs. C. had given the applicant a sexually transmitted disease, or words to that effect; and the applicant committed conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman by telling Mrs. C. of the Army found out about the relationship that the spouse could get into trouble and Mrs. C. could lose her children, or words to that effect, when Mrs. C. told the applicant she was going to tell the spouse about the affair. (3) Board of Inquiry (BOI): NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) GOSA Recommendation Date / Characterization: NIF (6) DASA Review Board Decision Date / Characterization: 11 January 2019 / Honorable 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 6 May 2017 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment / Education: 24 / Bachelor’s Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-1 / 25A, Signal, General / 1 year, 7 months, 18 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 30 May 2014 – 19 November 2014 / HD RA, 7 January 2010 – 23 April 2010 / HD (IADT) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (4 May 2018 – 3 July 2018) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-C-Device, NDSM, GWOTSM, ACM-CS-1, NCOPDR, OSR, g. Performance Ratings: 6 October 2017 – 12 June 2018 / Not Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: An AR 15-6 Investigation found the applicant and Mrs. C. engaged in a sexual or romantic relationship based on the statements of SSG C., Mrs. C., as well as phone and text history, and the applicant and Mrs. C. were both married at the time of the sexual or romantic relationship. The investigating officer recommended the command review the investigation and consider appropriate administrative or punitive action against the applicant. GOMOR, dated 17 May 2018, reflects the applicant was reprimanded for adultery, conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman, and making a false official statement. On or about November 2017 to on or about January 2018, the applicant, a married man, engaged in an adulterous relationship with the spouse of a noncommissioned officer. On 12 February 2018, the applicant stated to an investigating officer that the applicant never engaged in a romantic relationship with a spouse of a noncommissioned officer. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, Documents from the applicant’s AMHRR (65 total pages) 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. (1) 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. d. 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 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’s record Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant requests a narrative reason change. The applicant requests the narrative reason for the discharge be change. The applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 4, Army Regulation 600-8-24 with and honorable discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulation for a discharge under this chapter is “Unacceptable Conduct,” and the separation code to “JNC.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and 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 635-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) codes. The regulation stipulated no deviations authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation The applicant contends the discharge was improper because the case presented did not find the applicant committed adultery or had an inappropriate relationship. The accusing parties skirmishing sworn statements were deceitfully dismissed by the investigating officer in the recommendation to the legal parties. The evidence of record shows an AR 15-6 Investigation found the applicant and Mrs. C. engaged in a sexual or romantic relationship based on the statements of SSG C., Mrs. C., as well as phone and text history, and the applicant and Mrs. C. were both married at the time of the sexual or romantic relationship. The investigating officer recommended the command review the investigation and consider appropriate administrative or punitive action against the applicant. 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 and found the following diagnoses or experiences of Unspecified Mood DO which can, under certain circumstances, potentially mitigate or excuse misconduct leading to separation. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the applicant was diagnosed with Unspecified Mood DO while he was in the Army. (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 was diagnosed with Unspecified Mood Disorder, this condition does not mitigate sexual misconduct (adultery) and making a false official statement. Unspecified Mood Disorder does not affect one’s ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right, and Sexual misconduct (adultery) is not part of the natural history or sequelae of this diagnosis. (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 condition of Unspecified Mood Disorder outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – sexual misconduct (adultery) and making a false official statement. b. Response to Contention(s): The applicant contends the discharge was improper because the case presented did not find the applicant committed adultery or had an inappropriate relationship. The accusing parties skirmishing sworn statements were deceitfully dismissed by the investigating officer in the recommendation to the legal parties. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant did not provide supporting documentation to provide merit to the claim. Ultimately, the Board decided that the assertion alone did not outweigh the basis of separation due to the severity of the offenses and found no evidence of the Command acting arbitrarily or capriciously. In this case, the Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable. c. The Board determined 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 BH diagnosis of Unspecified Mood Disorder did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of sexual misconduct (adultery) and making a false official statement. 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, 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 AR20200002097 1