1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 25 September 2019 b. Date Received: 30 September 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 under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that he would like an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to rejoin the Army and to utilize his GI Bill benefits. The applicant contends that he works two jobs, has served one term under honorable conditions from 2010 to 2016, and volunteers at the USO. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 13 July 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 28 November 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: NIF; however, the unit commander’s recommendation memorandum refers to the factual reason(s) for action recommended as: Between on or about 1 August 2015 and on or about 7 December 2015, the applicant conspired with Specialist R.D.N., Jr to solicit Specialist R.G.V. and Sergeant L.A.H., to file fraudulent insurance claims; Between on or about 1 August 2015 and on or about 9 September 2016, the applicant conspired with Mr. G.R.A., to solicit Specialist A.U.A. and Specialist J.T.B., to file fraudulent insurance claims; Between on or about 2 February 2015 and on or about 10 February 2015, the applicant stole money, of a value of $3,546.99, the property of Chubb Insurance; Between on or about 18 July 2016 and on or about 4 August 2016, the applicant stole money, of a value of $8,346.06, the property of Chubb Insurance; Between on or about 2 February 2015, and on or about 17 August 2016, the applicant solicited Specialist A.R.B., to file a fraudulent insurance claim; Between on or about 2 February 2015 and on or about 10 May 2016, the applicant solicited Specialist H.T.J. to file a fraudulent insurance claim; Between on or about 2 February 2015 and on or about 15 September 2016, the applicant solicited Specialist C.D.J., to file a fraudulent insurance claim; Between on or about 2 February 2015 and on or about 25 April 2016, the applicant solicited Specialist V.I.A., to file a fraudulent insurance claim; Between on or about 2 February 2015 and on or about 30 September 2015, the applicant solicited Specialist R.D.N. Jr., to file a fraudulent insurance claim; Between on or about 2 February 2015 and on or about 10 February 2016, the applicant solicited Mr. G.R.A., to file a fraudulent insurance claim; Between on or about 2 February 2015 and on or about 15 May 2015, the applicant member solicited Mr. B.A.D., to file a fraudulent insurance claim; Between on or about 2 February 2015 and on or about 9 March 2015, the applicant solicited Mr. T.G.S., to file a fraudulent insurance claim; Between on or about 2 February 2015 and on or about 234 June 2015, the applicant solicited Mr. J.S.C., to file a fraudulent insurance claim; Between on or about 6 May 2015 and on or about 6 June 2015, the applicant received money from SPC A.R.B., of a value over $500.00, stolen from Chubb Insurance; Between on or about 17 September 2015 and on or about 17 October 2015, the applicant received money from SPC J.T.B., of value over $500.00, stolen from Chubb Insurance; Between on or about 30 September 2015 and on or about 30 October 2015, the applicant received money from SPC R.D.N., of a value of over $500.00, stolen from Chubb Insurance; Between on or about 19 November 2015 and on or about 19 December 2015, the applicant received money from SPC A.U.A., of a value over $500.00, stolen from Chubb Insurance; Between on or about 8 January 2016 and on or about 8 February 2016, the applicant received money from SPC A.R.B., of a value over $500.00, stolen from Chubb Insurance; Between on or about 4 February 2016 and on or about 4 March 2016, the applicant received money from SPC C.S.J., of a value over $500.00, stolen from Chubb Insurance; Between on or about 10 February 2016 and on or about 10 March 2016, the applicant received money from Mr. G.R.A., of a value over $500.00, of a value over $500.00, stolen from Chubb Insurance; Between on or about 16 June 2016 and on or about 16 July 2016, the applicant received money from SPC T.L.C., of a value over $500.00, stolen from Chubb Insurance; Between on or about 17 August 2016 and on or about 17 September 2016, the applicant received money from SPC A.R.B., of a value over $500.00, stolen from Chub Insurance; Between on or about 22 August 2016, the applicant received money from SPC K.B.M., of a value over $500.00, stolen from Chubb Insurance; and Between on or about 10 May 2016 and on or about 10 June 2016, the applicant received money from SPC H.T.J., of a value less than $500.00, stolen from Chubb Insurance. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 9 November 2017 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 16 February 2016 / 2 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 27 / HS Graduate / 102 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 88M20, Motor Transport Operator / 7 years, 7 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 6 April 2010 to 5 July 2010 / NA RA, 6 July 2010 to 15 February 2016 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii, SWA / Afghanistan (13 April 2011 to 23 March 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-3, AGCM-2, ACM-2CS, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 1 May 2016 to 30 April 2017, Not Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Law Enforcement Report, dated 3 March 2017, which indicates the applicant was the subject of investigation for Conspiracy-Fraud Offenses, Larceny of Private Funds, and Solicitation to Commit Offense–Fraud. Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial, dated 27 October 2017, which indicates the applicant was found guilty of the following offenses: Violating UCMJ Article 121 for between 2 February 2015 and 10 February 2015, stealing money, of a value of $3,546.99 and between 18 July 2016 and 4 August 2016, of value of $8,346.06, the property of Chubb Insurance; Violating Article 134, by wrongfully soliciting Specialist A.R.B., to file fraudulent insurance claims, such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces between 2 February 2015 and 17 August 2016; by wrongfully soliciting Specialist H.T.J., to file fraudulent insurance claims, such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces between 2 February 2015 and 10 May 2016; by wrongfully soliciting Specialist C.D.J., to file fraudulent insurance claims, such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces between 2 February 2015 and 15 September 2016; by wrongfully soliciting Specialist V.I.A., to file fraudulent insurance claims, such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces between 2 February 2015 and 25 April 2016; by wrongfully soliciting Specialist R.D.N., to file fraudulent insurance claims, such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces between 2 February 2015 and 30 September 2016; by wrongfully soliciting Mr. G.R.A., to file fraudulent insurance claims, such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces between 2 February 2015 and 10 February 2016; by wrongfully soliciting Mr. B.A.D., to file fraudulent insurance claims, such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces between 2 February 2015 and 15 May 2015; by wrongfully soliciting Mr. T.G.S., to file fraudulent insurance claims, such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces between 2 February 2015 and 9 March 2015; by wrongfully soliciting Mr. J.S.C., to file fraudulent insurance claims, such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces between 2 February 2015 and 23 June 2015; by wrongfully receiving money, of a value over $500.00, the property of Chubb Insurance obtained through a fraudulent insurance claim for Specialist A.R.B., which property the applicant then knew had been stolen such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces and of a nature of bring discredit upon the armed forces between 6 May 2015 and 6 June 2015; by wrongfully receiving money, of a value over $500.00, the property of Chubb Insurance obtained through a fraudulent insurance claim for Specialist J.T.B., which property the applicant then knew had been stolen such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces and of a nature of bring discredit upon the armed forces between 17 September 2015 and 17 October 2015; by wrongfully receiving money, of a value over $500.00, the property of Chubb Insurance obtained through a fraudulent insurance claim for Specialist R.D.N., which property the applicant then knew had been stolen such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces and of a nature of bring discredit upon the armed forces between 30 September 2015 and 30 October 2015; by wrongfully receiving money, of a value over $500.00, the property of Chubb Insurance obtained through a fraudulent insurance claim for Specialist A.U.A., which property the applicant then knew had been stolen such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces and of a nature of bring discredit upon the armed forces between 19 November 2015 and 19 December 2015; by wrongfully receiving money, of a value over $500.00, the property of Chubb Insurance obtained through a fraudulent insurance claim for Specialist A.R.B., which property the applicant then knew had been stolen such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces and of a nature of bring discredit upon the armed forces between 8 January 2016 and 8 February 2016; by wrongfully receiving money, of a value over $500.00, the property of Chubb Insurance obtained through a fraudulent insurance claim for Specialist C.D.J., which property the applicant then knew had been stolen such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces and of a nature of bring discredit upon the armed forces between 4 February 2016 and 4 March 2016; by wrongfully receiving money, of a value over $500.00, the property of Chubb Insurance obtained through a fraudulent insurance claim for Mr. G.R.A., which property the applicant then knew had been stolen such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces and of a nature of bring discredit upon the armed forces between 10 February 2016 and 10 March 2016; by wrongfully receiving money, of a value over $500.00, the property of Chubb Insurance obtained through a fraudulent insurance claim for Specialist T.L.C., which property the applicant then knew had been stolen such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces and of a nature of bring discredit upon the armed forces between 16 June 2016 and 16 July 2016; by wrongfully receiving money, of a value over $500.00, the property of Chubb Insurance obtained through a fraudulent insurance claim for Specialist A.R.B., which property the applicant then knew had been stolen such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces and of a nature of bring discredit upon the armed forces between 17 August 2016 and 17 September 2016; by wrongfully receiving money, of a value over $500.00, the property of Chubb Insurance obtained through a fraudulent insurance claim for Specialist K.B.M., which property the applicant then knew had been stolen such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces and of a nature of bring discredit upon the armed forces between 22 August 2016 and 22 September 2016; by wrongfully receiving money, of a value over $500.00, the property of Chubb Insurance obtained through a fraudulent insurance claim for Specialist H.T.J., which property the applicant then knew had been stolen such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces and of a nature of bring discredit upon the armed forces between 10 May 2016 and 10 June 2016; and Conspiring with Specialist R.D.N., to commit an offense under the UCMJ, to wit: soliciting other service members to commit larceny, and in order to effect the object of the conspiracy, the said Specialist N. did solicit Specialist R.G.V., and Sergeant L.A.H., to file a fraudulent Insurance claim, between 1 August 2015 and 7 December 2015; and conspiring with Mr. G.R.A., to commit an offense under the UCMJ, to wit: soliciting other service members to commit larceny, and in order to effect the object of the conspiracy, the said Mr. A. did solicit Specialist A.U.A., and Specialist J.T.B., to file a fraudulent Insurance claim, between 1 August 2015 and 9 September 2016. Department of Defense Report of Result of Trial, dated 27 October 2017, indicates the applicant’s sentence included reduction to the grade of E-4, to forfeit one-third month’s pay for one month; and to be restricted to post for 15 days, with off post privileges only allowed with written permission from the company commandeer and a noncommissioned officer escort. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: DD Form 2807-1 (Report of Medical History), dated 25 October 2017, contained with the applicant separation packet indicates in the comments section makes reference to the applicant having been diagnosed with PTSD and adjustment disorder and was under care. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Table of Contents which includes items/tabs A-G (letters of support/characteristics statements, award certificates, NCO Evaluation Report) 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) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (6) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. (7) Paragraph 14-12c, states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. e. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waivable and nonwaivable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waivable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. f. 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 “JKQ” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). 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 or general (under honorable conditions). The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR) is void of the complete facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. The applicant’s AMHRR does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was not authenticated by the applicant’s signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provision of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of Misconduct (Serious Offense), with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The applicant seeks relief contending that he would like an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to rejoin the Army and to utilize his GI Bill benefits. The applicant contends that he works two jobs, has served one term under honorable conditions from 2010 to 2016, and volunteers at the USO. The applicant's contentions were carefully considered, and the applicant is to be commended on his post-service accomplishments. However, a determination on whether these contentions have merit cannot be made because the complete facts and circumstances leading to the discharge are unknown. The burden of proof remains with the applicant to provide the appropriate documents such as the discharge packet or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration. It should also be noted; Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. At the time of discharge, the applicant was assigned a RE code of 3. An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist. If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. Further, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 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 that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder NOS and PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board’s Medical Advisor found the applicant was diagnosed during military service with an Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder NOS, and PTSD; however, the PTSD diagnosis is not supported by documentation. Rather, the diagnosis is based solely on self-report. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that even if PTSD is accepted at face value, the diagnosis, and other diagnoses, do not mitigate the conspiracy to commit fraud, larceny of private funds, and solicitation to commit fraud. Specifically, the misconduct requires purposeful and conscious planning with multiple steps over time and efforts at evasion; the applicant’s cognitive skills were intact. (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 the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder NOS, and PTSD outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – conspiracy to commit fraud, larceny of private funds, and solicitation to commit fraud. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge for the purpose of being able to rejoin the Army and to utilize applicant’s GI Bill benefits. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant has a Reentry Code of 3. An RE Code of “3” indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army’s needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes, if appropriate. The Board also determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare or VA loans, do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. (2) The applicant contends that working two jobs, has served one term under honorable conditions from 2010 to 2016, and volunteers at the USO. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. In this case, the Board determined that the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable, an upgrade is not warranted. 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, Anxiety Disorder NOS, and PTSD did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of conspiracy to commit fraud, larceny of private funds, and solicitation to commit fraud. 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 AR20200002652 1