1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 March 2020 b. Date Received: 16 April 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant was subjected to a shoddy criminal investigation in which there was no evidence of guilt for the charges; the applicant felt coerced and pressured into signing an Article 15; the applicant was not given the opportunity to provide evidence of innocence; the applicant was denied legal representation; the applicant was not given the opportunity to appeal the discharge; and the applicant was retaliated against for contacting a congressman. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 05 July 2023, and by a 4- 1 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 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 6 April 2020 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 31 January 2020 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant made a false official statement with intent to deceive on or about 16 April 2019 and wrongfully do a certain act with the intent to impede the due administration of justice in the applicant’s case in which the applicant had reason to believe there were or would be criminal proceedings pending. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 4 February 2020 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 25 February 2020 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 July 2018 / 4 years, 23 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 118 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist / 1 year, 9 months, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, AFSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 10 January 2019, reflects the applicant made a false official statement with intent to deceive on or about 16 April 2019 and wrongfully do a certain act with the intent to impede the due administration of justice in the applicant’s case in which the applicant had reason to believe there were or would be criminal proceedings pending. The punishment consisted of reductio to private/E-1; forfeiture of $840 pay per month for 2 months; extra duty and restriction for 45 days; and an oral reprimand. A Mental Status Evaluation, dated 24 October 2019, reflects the applicant could understand and participate in the administrative proceedings and could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. Memorandum, subject: Law Enforcement Report-( Category 3) Final, dated 11 December 2019, reflects, an investigation found probable cause existed to believe the applicant violated the following Article of the UCMJ: Article 107, False Official Statement and Article 131(b) Obstructing justice. Probable cause did not exist to believe the applicant violated the following Articles of the UCMJ: Article 117a, Wrongful Broadcast or Distribution of Intimate Visual Images; and Article 120c, Indecent Visual Record. The investigation further found probable cause did not exist to believe the applicant violated Article 120 of the UCMJ, Sexual Assault. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, DD Form 214, personal statement, documents from applicant’s separation file including letters of support 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) 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. (5) 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. (6) 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. 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. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant was subjected to a shoddy criminal investigation in which there was no evidence of guilt for the charges of giving a false statement and impeding justice. Memorandum, subject: Law Enforcement Report-( Category 3) Final, dated 11 December 2019, reflects, an investigation found probable cause existed to believe the applicant violated the following Article of the UCMJ: Article 107, False Official Statement and Article 131(b) Obstructing justice. The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant felt coerced and pressured into signing an Article 15, and was denied legal representation, was not given the opportunity to appeal the discharge or provide evidence of innocence and there was retaliation for contacting a congressman. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The applicant contends there was honorable service. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends 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 diagnosis: Generalized Anxiety Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. Given the VA backdated GAD to discharge, the assumption is at least some symptoms were present in- 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 the applicant’s service- connected condition is related to the discharge and not present prior to the misconduct; it did not drive the misconduct. However, even if symptoms existed prior to the misconduct, it would not be mitigating as it does not render an individual unable to make purposeful choices knowing right from wrong. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the ADRB’s application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the applicant’s Generalized Anxiety Disorder outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation; Misconduct - False Official Statement, Wrongful Broadcast or Distribution of Intimate Visual Images, and Obstructing justice - for the aforementioned reason. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The Board considered this contention and determined that a change to the applicant’s current characterization of service is not warranted at this time because the quality of the applicant’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By committing the misconduct of making false official statement, wrongful broadcast or distribution of intimate visual images, and obstructing justice diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. Thus, the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends the applicant was subjected to a shoddy criminal investigation in which there was no evidence of guilt for the charges of giving a false statement and impeding justice. The Board considered this contention and the applicant’s assertion of inequity, however the Board determined that there is no evidence of said inequity in the available AMHRR or evidence of arbitrary or capricious by the command. Also, the board found a Memorandum, subject: Law Enforcement Report-( Category 3) Final, dated 11 December 2019, reflects, an investigation found probable cause existed to believe the applicant violated the misconducts detailed in paragraphs 9a (4) and 9b (1). (3) The applicant contends the applicant felt coerced and pressured into signing an Article 15. The Board considered this contention and the applicant’s assertion of inequity, however the Board determined that there is no evidence of said inequity in the available AMHRR or evidence of arbitrary or capricious by the command. (4) The applicant contends the applicant was denied legal representation and was not given the opportunity to appeal the discharge or provide evidence of innocence. The Board considered this contention during deliberation and after a review of the applicant’s AMHRR the record did not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. (5) The applicant contends there was retaliation for contacting a congressman. The Board considered this contention during proceedings and determined that there is no evidence of said inequity in the available AMHRR or evidence of arbitrary or capricious by the command and the assertion alone did not outweigh the basis of separation detailed in paragraphs 9a (4) and 9b (1) due to the severity of the offenses. 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, the applicant’s Generalized Anxiety Disorder did not mitigate the offenses detailed in paragraphs 9a (4) and 9b (1). The applicant did not supply sufficient independent corroborating evidence to support contentions, and 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. 9. 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 AR20200004304 1