1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 13 January 2020 b. Date Received: 21 January 2020 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable along with a separation program designator (SPD) code and narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge was inequitable and improper under the governing regulation. The applicant was discharged for unacceptable conduct, but the allegation and legal reviews presented by senior military officials did not result in the applicant being found guilty of misconduct. An upgrade is warranted because an improper and inequitable administrative process was used to separate the applicant. The contends formal complaints were sent to U.S. Army Judge Advocate Office on the actions of the Fort Hood Administrative and Civil Law Office. The applicant began having anxiety attacks and other issues while stationed at Fort Hood which resulted in the applicant seeking treatment through the behavioral health and general patient clinic. The applicant has received a disability rating related to the anxiety condition. The applicant contends there was honorable which warrants an honorable discharge. The applicant is pursuing a master’s degree in Clinical Laboratory Science to pursue a career in healthcare. Due to the general discharge, the applicant is not able to utilize the GI Bill for tuition and fees or receive additional incentives. An upgrade would improve opportunities for the applicant to serve others through the Veterans Administration, state, and local healthcare systems. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 9 December 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: 2 July 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: Notification dated 14 September 2018; applicant refused to sign. (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was required to Show Cause for retention based on the applicant being derelict in the performance of duties for funeral details between 10 December 2017 and 25 February 2018; the applicant received a GOMOR on 16 April 2018 for the misconduct mentioned in above; the applicant was disrespectful in language and deportment towards COL C and CPT R; and the applicant disobey a lawful order from a senior commissioned officer. (3) Board of Inquiry (BOI): On 6 November 2018, a BOI found the allegations that the applicant received a GOMOR on 16 April 2018 due to misconduct was supported by a preponderance of the evidence and did support involuntary separation under 4-2c for derogatory information; that the applicant was derelict in the performance of duties for funeral details between 10 December 2107 and 25 February 2018, by failing to have appropriate uniform, refusing to comply when detailed, and failing to be at the proper place as the OIC when detailed was supported by a preponderance of the evidence and supports involuntary separation under 4-2b for misconduct moral and professional dereliction; that the applicant was disrespectful in language and deportment to CPT R, the company commander, between 10 and 14 August 2018 is supported by the preponderance of the evidence and did not support involuntary separation under 4-2b for misconduct moral and professional dereliction; that the applicant was disrespectful in language and deportment to COL C, a superior commissioned officer, on 10 May 2018 was supported by a preponderance of the evidence and did support involuntary separation under 4-2b for misconduct moral and professional dereliction; and the applicant disobeyed a lawful order from LTC L, a senior commissioned officer, on 4 September 2018 when the applicant refused to get into a government vehicle to retrieve paperwork for a medical appointment was supported by the preponderance of the evidence and did support involuntary separation under 4-2b for misconduct moral and professional dereliction. The BOI recommended the applicant be separated from service in the U.S. Army and be issued a General (Under Honorable Conditions) Discharge Certificate. (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) GOSA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 21 December 2018, the GOSA, recommended the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service as General (Under Honorable Condition) (6) DASA Review Board Decision Date / Characterization: On 18 June 2019, the DASA determined the applicant would be involuntarily eliminated from the U.S. Army with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization. The elimination was based on both misconduct and moral or professional dereliction (Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b), and derogatory information (Army Regulation 600-8-4, paragraph 4-2c). 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 10 May 2010 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment / Education: 22 / Baccalaureate Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS/ Total Service: O-3 / 42B5P, Human Resource Officer / 9 years, 1 month, 12 days d. Prior Service / Combat Service: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Afghanistan (14 April 2017 – 10 May 2017) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR, Parachutist Badge g. Performance Ratings: 9 August 2011 – 8 August 2012 / Best Qualified 9 August 2012 – 13 June 2013 / Best Qualified 13 June 2013 – 18 February 2014 / Best Qualified 1 July 2015 – 11 November 2015 / Highly Qualified 12 November 2015 – 18 December 2016 / Most Qualified 13 March 2015 – 26 June 2015 / Qualified 19 December 2016 – 1 July 2018 / Not Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Memorandum for Record, subject: Findings and Recommendations, AR 15-6 Investigation, Failure to Present Funeral Military Honors, dated 5 March 2018, reflects the investigating officer (IO) determined the applicant should receive a verbal counseling specifically addressing importance for an officer to directly address problems to the chain of command and not wait for the COC to learn of negative information and be reprimanded on the importance for officers to think critically at all times. The IO did not recommend the command take administrative action against the applicant for the failure to complete the funeral detail. Although the applicant’s actions were misguided, the applicant believed the right thing was done and relied on the information given. On 13 March 2018, the IOs findings and recommendations were disapproved and the following findings and recommendations were approved: The failure to conduct the funeral detail was due to the applicant’s being derelict in the performance and excursion of duties under Article 92, UCMJ through negligence; the applicant did not exhaust every reasonable possible outcome to find the correct cemetery; the applicant, by willful omission, was not honest and forthright in completing the after action report and was not honest with and forthright in informing the chain of command of the failure to complete an assigned task and in doing so displayed conduct unbecoming of an officer under Article 133, UCMJ; the Fort Hood CAC office fulfilled their regulatory responsibilities; and adverse action for the applicant for negligent dereliction of duty and conduct unbecoming of an officer for willful omission and lack of forthrightness in informing the chain of command or the CAC that a U.S. Army funeral detail had failed on one of its most time-honored, sacred, and solemn duties to veterans and their families. On 13 March 2018, a request from Brigadier General M, Commander, 13th Expeditionary Support Command, Fort Hood TX, to dispose of the applicant’s alleged senior leader misconduct was disapproved by the issuing authority. GOMOR, dated 16 April 2018, reflects the applicant was derelict in the performance of duties as an Officer in Charge (OIC) of Fort Hood Military Funeral Honors. On 25 February 2018, after being fully briefed on and acknowledging responsibilities as the funeral detail OIC for a memorial to be held that day, the applicant failed to execute those duties. The applicant took the team to the wrong city; failed to notify the Casualty Assistance Center (CAC) of the mistake so they could send a replacement to present the flag honors; and the applicant never notified the CAC or the command of the failure to complete the III Corps mission to render honors to a veteran’s family that day. On 16 April 2018, the Article 15 issued to applicant dated 13 March 2018, was withdrawn by the issuing authority. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provides a partial Department of Veteran Affairs Rating Decision Letter, dated 15 November 2019, which reflects the applicant was granted service connection for generalized anxiety disorder with an evaluation of 30-percent effective 3 July 2019. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, personal statement, and enclosures (160 total pages) 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is pursuing a master’s degree in Clinical Laboratory Science to pursue a career in healthcare. 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. 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. 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 to 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’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant requests the narrative reason and SPD code be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, AR 600-8-24 with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Unacceptable Conduct.” Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The SPD code “JNC” is the appropriate code to assign to officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b. The applicant contends the discharged was based on unacceptable conduct, but the allegation and legal reviews presented by senior military officials did not result in the applicant being found guilty of misconduct. On 6 November 2018, a BOI recommended the applicant be involuntarily eliminated from the U.S. Army based on both misconduct and moral or professional dereliction and derogatory information, with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service. The applicant contends an upgrade is warranted because an improper and inequitable administrative process was used for the separation. The applicant contends formal complaints were sent to U.S. Army Judge Advocate Office on the actions of the Fort Hood Administrative and Civil Law Office. The applicant’s AMHRR is void of a response from the U.S. Judge Advocate Office. The applicant contends there were anxiety attacks and other issues while stationed at Fort Hood which resulted in the applicant seeking treatment through the behavioral health and general patient clinic and the applicant has received a disability rating related to the anxiety condition. The applicant provides a partial Department of Veteran Affairs Rating Decision Letter, dated 15 November 2019, which reflects the applicant was granted service connection for generalized anxiety disorder with an evaluation of 30-percent effective 3 July 2019. The applicant contends there was honorable service which warrants an honorable discharge. The Board will consider the applicant service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant is pursuing a master’s degree in Clinical Laboratory Science to pursue a career in healthcare. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after 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. The applicant states, due to the general discharge, the applicant is not able to utilize the GI Bill for tuition and fees or receive additional incentives. 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. The applicant contends an upgrade would improve opportunities for the applicant to serve others through the Veterans Administration, state, and local healthcare systems. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. 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. 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: Anxiety Disorder, unspecified. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the applicant was diagnosed with Anxiety DO while in the military. The VA has established service connection for Anxiety Disorder (30% SC) as well. (3) Does the condition or experience excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant has a BH condition, Anxiety Disorder, which mitigates some of her misconduct. As there is an association between excessive anxiety and increased irritability, there is a nexus between Anxiety DO and being disrespectful toward others. Anxiety DO, however, does not mitigate dereliction of duty or the disobeying of an order given that Anxiety DO does not affect one’s ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Based on liberally considering all the evidence before the Board, the ADRB determined that the condition or experience did not outweigh the basis of separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends an upgrade is warranted because an improper and inequitable administrative process was used for the separation. 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. In this case, the Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends there were anxiety attacks and other issues while stationed at Fort Hood which resulted in the applicant seeking treatment through the behavioral health and general patient clinic and the applicant has received a disability rating related to the anxiety. The Board determined this contention was valid after review of the applicant's DOD and VA health records. It revealed the applicant was diagnosed in service with Anxiety Disorder. However, the Anxiety Disorder does not mitigate dereliction of duty or the disobeying of an order misconduct. Therefore, the Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable. (3) The applicant contends there was honorable service which warrants an honorable discharge. 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 to the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By dereliction of duty or the disobeying of an order, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (4) The applicant contends formal complaints were sent to U.S. Army Judge Advocate Office on the actions of the Fort Hood Administrative and Civil Law Office. 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. 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 Anxiety Disorder did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of dereliction of duty or the disobeying of an order. 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 AR20200004020 1