1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 16 December 2019 b. Date Received: 18 December 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, an upgrade of the discharge is for the purpose of being able to receive medical help from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The applicant contends spending 14 years in the Army between active duty and reserve and that the applicant served this great country with honor, honesty, and integrity throughout that career. The applicant made a mistake that ended the applicant’s career, and the applicant believes the applicant has paid for it. The applicant went through many military schools and deployed once to Afghanistan. The applicant loved this career and obeyed all orders that were given to the best of the applicant’s abilities. The applicant contends needing help from the Department of Veterans Affairs since struggling with PTSD and has bad memories from deployment and needs their help to continue doing the great job that the applicant is doing so far. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 2 November 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 (Civil Conviction) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14, Sec II / JKB / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 25 April 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 16 August 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for between on or about 1 May 2009 and 30 June 2009, while stationed at Camp Egger, Afghanistan, the applicant embezzled and wrongfully converted over $1.2 million dollars for the applicant’s own use. Consequently, on 3 May 2013 the applicant was convicted of converting property of another and aiding and abetting, by civil authorities and sentenced to 30 months of confinement. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Then Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 11 September 2013, the applicant having been advised by the consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to separate for conviction by civil court AR 635-200, Chapter 14-5. The applicant voluntarily waived consideration of the case by an administrative separation board contingent upon receiving a characterization of service or description of separation no less favorable than a general (under honorable condition) discharge pursuant to AR 635-200. (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant was notified to appear before an Administrative Separation Board on 21 February 2014. The board convened on 20 February 2014. The Board found and recommended that the allegation the applicant was convicted of converting property of another and aiding and abetting as detailed in the initiation of separation memorandum, dated 16 August 2013, was supported by a preponderance of the evidence; and the board recommended the applicant be separated with an under other that honorable conditions characterization of service. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: On 27 March 2014 the separation authority having reviewed the entire case file, the administrative board proceedings, and all matters submitted regarding the applicant directed that the applicant be separated from the Army with and Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 22 February 2007 / 3 years (Oath of Extension of Enlistment document dated 21 November 2011 in the AMHRR refers to the applicant extending the 6-year enlistment of 22 February 2009, to a period of 6 years, 1 month, 0 weeks, giving the applicant a new ETS date of 21 March 2015. No other extension documents were found in the available record. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / 2 years college / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 36B20, Financial Management / 13 years, 5 months, 19 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 6 December 1999 to 21 February 2007 / GD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Afghanistan (28 July 2008 to 18 July 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-6, AGCM-2, NDSM, ACM-CS, GWTSM, NOPDR, ASR, OSR, AFRMM, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: 2 March 2012 to 1 March 2013, Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Memorandum for Commander, dated 30 October 2012, reference Legal Review of 15-6 Investigation into allegation of hazing (A Detachment, 106th Finance). FG Article 15, dated 21 December 2012, for violating a lawful general regulation on or about 4 August 2012, to wit: paragraph 4-20, Army Regulation 600-20, dated 18 April 2008/RAR 4 August 2011, by wrongfully pouring liquids onto SGT A.D. while the applicant was in the front leaning and rest position as part of an initiation “rite of passage” for SGT A.D’s., promotion to the rank of E-5 and between on or about 19 July 2012 to on or about 3 August 2012, was cruel toward PFC M.C., a person subject to his orders, by making PFC M.C., wear an alarm clock tied to his waist at all times while PFC M.C., was at work. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-5, forfeiture of $1,506.00 pay per month for two months (suspended), and extra duty for 45 days. DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 2 July 2013, indicating the change of the applicant’s duty status from present for duty to civilian confinement, effective 30 June 2013. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: Civilian Confinement 300 days (30 June 2013 to 25 April 2014) because of civil conviction. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; NCO Evaluation Reports; several character references letters of support; and DD Form 214 for the period of service under review. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: At the time of application, is working as a Senior Supervisor making airplane parts for commercial airplanes and military aircrafts. Applicant is a hard worker and a great family supporter and feels that the hard work now extended from military service to serve the country and support the family. Applicant is a baseball coach and a football coach for kids in the city; volunteers for city projects and helps the fire department and police department when volunteers are needed. The applicant is a good citizen, friends and neighbors come to the applicant when they need help. Applicant tries to be the best example for kids. 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) Section II, Paragraph 14-5, prescribes conditions that subject a Soldier to discharge and reduction in grade. A Soldier may be considered for discharge when initially convicted by civil authorities, or when action is taken that is tantamount to a finding of guilty, if one of the following conditions is present. This includes similar adjudication in juvenile proceedings: 1) A punitive discharge authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the MCM 2002, as amended; 2) The sentence by civil authorities includes confinement for 6 months or more, without regard to suspension or probation. Adjudication in juvenile proceedings includes adjudication as a juvenile delinquent, wayward minor, or youthful offender; Initiation of separation action is not mandatory. Although the conditions established in a (1) or (2), above, are present, the immediate commander must also consider whether the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation. If the immediate commander initiates separation action, the case will be processed through the chain of command to the separation authority for appropriate action. A Soldier convicted by a civil court or adjudged a juvenile offender by a civil court will be reduced or considered for reduction. 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 “JKB” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, II, misconduct (civil conviction). f. 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 waiverable and nonwaiverable 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 waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant’s AMHRR of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. Evidence in the record indicates separation action was initiated against the applicant for between on or about 1 May 2009 and 30 June 2009, while stationed at Camp Egger, Afghanistan, the applicant embezzled and wrongfully converted over $1.2 million dollars for the applicant own use. Consequently, on 3 May 2013, the applicant was convicted of converting property of another and aiding and abetting, by civil authorities and sentenced to 30 months of confinement. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates a Soldier may be separated when initially convicted by civil authorities, or when action is taken tantamount to a finding of guilty, if a punitive discharge authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts Martial or the sentence by civil authorities includes confinement for six months or more, without regard to suspension or probation. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200 with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Misconduct (Civil Conviction),” and the separation code is “JKB.” The applicant’s contentions were noted; evidence indicates the applicant committed several discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant’s numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considers service accomplishments and the quality of service. The applicant contends needing needs help from the Department of Veterans Affairs since the applicant is struggling with PTSD and has bad memories from the deployment. The applicant needs the help to continue making progress. However, the service record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Further, the record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service at the time of discharge Also, it should be noted, 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: PTSD and Nightmare Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board’s Medical Advisor found that the applicant’s PTSD and Nightmare Disorder existed during military service. (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 PTSD and Nightmare Disorder while on active duty, these conditions do not mitigate the financial misconduct as they do 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. 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 PTSD and Nightmare Disorder outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – the applicant embezzled and wrongfully converted over $1.2 million dollars, and consequently was convicted of converting property of another and aiding and abetting by civil authorities and sentenced to 30 months of confinement – for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record but 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 embezzling and wrongfully converting over $1.2 million and the subsequent civil conviction, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (2) The applicant seeks relief contending would like an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to receive medical help from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Board considered this contention and 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. (3) The applicant contends needing help from the Department of Veterans Affairs since for PTSD and bad memories from deployment. The ADRB is not bound by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decisions. There is no law or regulation which requires that an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the Board determination that there was a condition or experience that existed during the applicant’s time in service. The Board must also articulate the nexus between that condition or experience and the basis for separation. Then, the Board must determine that the condition or experience outweighed the basis for separation. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former service member is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the ARBA when determining a member’s discharge characterization. In this case, the Board considered this contention and determined that there was no connection between the applicant’s PTSD and the nature of the applicant’s misconduct, thus the basis for separation is not mitigated. Further, as stated above, the Board that eligibility for Veteran’s benefits do not fall under the purview of the ADRB. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s PTSD and Nightmare Disorder did not excuse or mitigate the applicant’s basis for separation – the applicant embezzled and wrongfully converted over $1.2 million dollars, and consequently was convicted of converting property of another and aiding and abetting by civil authorities and sentenced to 30 months of confinement. 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 and the applicant’s BH conditions are service limiting. 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 AR20200004105 1