1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 23 March 2020 b. Date Received: 5 May 2020 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant also requests the removal or masking of both a GOMOR and an IG memorandum in is official record. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his command and assigned counsel was aware that he had psychological issues/TBI. The applicant was not provided the proper treatment at Fort Leonard Wood and was instructed by counsel he could not discuss his psychological issues/TBI. Those factors were central to his case along with other medicines given to him throughout the investigation. The applicant states, he did not get a fair hearing because he was denied the opportunity to present facts. In the midst of being targeted by the command, he never stopped working hard all the way until the end, but it was at the expense of him suffering mentally. The applicant states, it took a couple of year after his discharge, for psychologists to find out what was going on with him and get his conditions properly documented with the VA. The applicant further details the contentions in an allied self-authored statement provided with the application. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review at the time in the service record, the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA), and Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV), notes indicate diagnoses of Panic Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, and Adjustment Disorder and experienced Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) as a victim and offender. Post-service, he has held an Unspecified Anxiety Disorder diagnosis. In- and post-service neurological notes indicate a history of mild TBI which was healing and without cognitive impairment. The applicant is 70% service connected for Panic Disorder. While liberal consideration was applied, adultery, making a false official statement, and interference with an investigation are not a natural progression or normal sequela of any of the applicant's diagnoses or IPV. In summary, the applicant does not have a BH diagnosis that is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 22 January 2021, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. (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: 10 October 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 20 June 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2b (5), due to an act of personal misconduct and paragraph 4-2c(5), having adverse information filed in his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) IAW AR 600-37. The applicant was informed of the specific reasons for elimination: substantiated derogatory activity resulting in a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 26 February 2016, that was filed in his AMHMR. Specifically, he was issued a reprimand for conduct unbecoming of an Officer, committing adultery between August 2014 and August 2015, making a false official statement during the course of an investigation, and wrongful interference with an official administrative investigation by instructing a witness on how they should testify. (3) Legal Consultation Date: 5 July 2016 (4) Board of Inquiry (BOI): On 5 July 2016, the applicant submitted a conditional resignation and waived his right to a Board of Inquiry, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than Honorable. On 21 October 2016, GOSCA, recommended disapproval of the applicant's conditional waiver. On 6 January 2017, a Board of Inquiry convened and recommended the applicant be separated with a Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. (5) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 16 February 2017, the GOSCA approved the BOI's recommendation to eliminate the applicant from the Army. / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (6) DASA Review Board Decision Date / Characterization: 19 September 2017 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Appointment Date / Period of Appointment: 9 August 1996 / The applicant was ordered to Active Duty on 1 May 2011, for indefinite period. b. Age at Appointment / Education: 38 / Bachelor's Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-4 / 31A, Military Police Officer / 23 years, 1 month, 3 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 8 September 1994 - 8 August 1996 / HD USARCG, 9 August 1996 - 13 December 1996 / NIF ARNG, 14 December 1996 - 18 October 2002 / HD ADT, 13 July 1997 - 28 October 1997 / HD (Concurrent Service) AD, 6 June 2000 - 29 September 2000 / NA (Concurrent Service) AD, 9 October 2001 - 23 August 2002 / HD (Concurrent Service) USARCG, 19 October 2002 - 8 August 2006 / NIF USAR, 9 August 2006 - 31 July 2011 / NIF AD, 2 March 2007 - 30 January 2011 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Afghanistan (17 May 2002 - 16 July 2002 / 27 October 2015 - 13 May 2016); Iraq (1 April 2007 - 27 September 2007) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-2CS; AFRMM; AFRM-10-BH; MSM; JSCM-3; ARCOM-3; JSAM; AAM-4; JMUA; PUC; ASUA; ARCAM; NDSM-BSS; AFEM; GWOTSM; KDSM; ICM-CS:ASR; OSR; ARCOTR; MOVSM; NATOMDL-2; KPUC g. Performance Ratings: 31 January 2011 - 15 December 2011 / Best Qualified 16 December 2011 - 31 May 2012 / Best Qualified 1 June 2012 - 31 May 2013 / Best Qualified 15 June 2015 - 9 October 2015 / Highly Qualified 10 October 2015 - 7 May 2016 / Highly Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers, dated 6 January 2017, reflects the Board found: The applicant did commit Adultery; The applicant did interfere with an official administrative investigation; and, the applicant did make a false official statement. The Board recommended the applicant be separated from the Army with a Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization of service. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 26 February 2016, for committing adultery, making a false official statement during the course of an investigation, and wrongful interference with an official administrative investigation. On 26 January 2016, an administrative investigation concluded that between August 2014 and August 2015 he engaged in sexual intercourse with a woman not his wife. During the investigation, he provided a false official statement by denying that he had wrongfully engaged in sexual intercourse with a woman not his wife. In that same statement, he stated that he stopped communicating with the woman with whom he was having an adulterous affair. However, the woman provided evidence to the investigating officer (IO) showing that several days after your 19 January 2016 official statement, he had contacted her about her testimony to the 10. A review of the communication you made to this witness, indicates he was instructing her on how she should testify to avoid telling the truth about his adulterous relationship. In his findings, the IO determined through multiple sworn statements and witness interviews that he lacked credibility and honesty. The imposing authority concur with those findings. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 6 March 2017, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood. The applicant provided a copy of his VA disability rating decision, dated 23 December 2019, which reflects the applicant was rated 70 percent disability for: adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety, depression, other specified trauma related disorder with traumatic brain injury. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; self-authored statement; Family Advocacy Documents; two Travel Vouchers; Letter of Concern; Sworn Statement; medical records; PTSD article; VA Rating Decision; three evaluations; Officer Record Brief. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): 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. National Defense Authorization Act 2017 provided 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) or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) in connection with combat or sexual assault or sexual harassment as a basis for discharge review. Further, it provided 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; as a basis for the discharge. In August 2017, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provided further clarifying guidance 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. 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. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant also requests the removal or masking of both a GOMOR and an IG memorandum in is official record. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms that the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by Army officers. It brought discredit on the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant provided no corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the unacceptable conduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained. Further, the applicant's record contains no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends he was suffering from TBI and other mental health issues, which affected his behavior. The applicant's service record contains documentation that supports a diagnosis of in service Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood; however, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The record shows that on 6 March 2017, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation, which indicates he was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. It appears, the applicant's chain of command determined that he knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation. The fact the Veterans Administration has granted the applicant service connection for medical conditions the applicant suffered while on active duty does not support a conclusion that these conditions rendered the applicant unfit for further service at the time of his discharge processing. The available medical evidence in the record is void of any indication that the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during his discharge processing that would have warranted his separation processing through medical channels. The applicant contends he did not get a fair hearing because he was not allowed to present facts and he was denied the opportunity to seek mental health during the separation proceedings. The applciant contends he was targeting by his command and repeatedly investigated to appease his spouse. However, 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 character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. The applicant requests an the removal or masking of both a GOMOR and an IG memorandum in is official record. However, the applicant's request does not fall within the purview of this Board. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. The applicant contends that he had good service, which included three combat tours. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended for his accomplishments. The third party statement provided with the application spoke highly of the applicant's character. The author supported the applicant's contention that his spouse was abusive towards his the applicant and attempted to negatively influence the applicant's career; however, the person providing the character reference statement was not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, the statement did not provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. 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. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 22 January 2021, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NCO - Noncommissioned Officer SCM - Summary Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial BH - Behavioral Health HD - Honorable Discharge NOS - Not Otherwise Specified SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OAD - Ordered to Active Duty TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP - Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS - Entry Level Status MST - Military Sexual Trauma PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable RE - Reentry VA - Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20200006298 1