1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 28 April 2020 b. Date Received: 5 May 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 narrative reason and separation program designator (SPD) code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, as a brand-new warrant officer, the applicant was unfairly characterized by the command at Fort Huachuca, Arizona. The applicant completed the warrant officer’s basic course, but the applicant’s Form 1059 was unfairly held by command, pending the outcome of an investigation. The applicant was unfairly punished and separated for something the applicant denies occurred. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 19 May 2023, 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: 28 June 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 December 2018 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Acts of personal misconduct as outlined in an AR 15-6 investigation, date 10 August 2018, and Law Enforcement Investigation, dated 4 September 2018; filing of a General Officer memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 5 November 2018; and failure of a course at a service school because of misconduct as outlined in a DA Form 1059, dated 23 October 2018. (3) Board of Inquiry (BOI): NA (4) GOSA Recommendation Date / Characterization: 14 February 2019 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (5) DASA Review Board Decision Date / Characterization: 17 June 2019 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAIL a. Date / Period of Appointment: 4 April 2018 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment / Education: 33 / Bachelor’s Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: WO1 / 35OFO, All Source Intelligence Technician / 12 years, 2 months, 24 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 5 April 2007 – 3 April 2018 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Afghanistan (8 December 2008 – 2 July 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-3, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, ACM-CS, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-2, NATO MDL, Basic Army Instructor Badge, Sharpshooter Marksmanship Bade-Carbine Bar g. Performance Ratings: None for this period of service. h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: GOMOR, dated 5 November 2018, reflects the applicant committed the act of harassment in violation of Arizona Revised Statue 13- 2921.A1 by repeatedly texting female lieutenants, who had parked their vehicles at the Candlewood Suites on fort Huachuca, Arizona. On 10 August 2018, an Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 investigation determined the applicant verbally and non-verbally harassed four junior enlisted female Soldiers in violation of AR 600-20, Chapter 7. The investigation further determined the applicant created an intimidating, hostile, and offensive work environment for the Soldiers by repeatedly making unwelcomed appearances in the female hallway of the barracks by making suspiciously frequent appearances in close proximity to the Soldiers at various locations on Fort Huachuca, Arizona. A Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 4 May 2018, reflects the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The MSE reflects the applicant had no psychiatric diagnosis. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: The applicant provides a VA letter, dated 2 April 2020, which reflects, in part, the applicant had a service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) granted with an evaluation of 50 percent. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, college transcripts, VA letter, dated 2 April 2020, DD Forms 214, VA letter, dated 24 April 2020, documents from separation file, various documents from the applicant’s AMHRR (116 pages) 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 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 requests an upgrade to honorable along with a narrative reason and SPD code change. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. a. 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 635-8, 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. b. The applicant contends as a brand-new warrant officer, the applicant was unfairly characterized by the command at Fort Huachuca, Arizona. The applicant completed the warrant officer’s basic course, but the applicant’s Form 1059 was unfairly held by command, pending the outcome of an investigation. Further, the applicant was unfairly punished and separated for something the applicant denies occurred. 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. 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: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Intimate Partner Violence. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found Army: IPV; PTSD (50% Service Connected). (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 the victim of IPV, said IPV occurred in 2011 and there is no indication that it played any role in the applicant’s misconduct which occurred in 2018. Applicant has also been diagnosed with PTSD by the VA which is also not mitigating given that PTSD does not affect one’s ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance. Additionally, sexual harassment is not part of the natural history or sequelae of PTSD. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD and IPV outweighed the applicant’s medically unmitigated sexual harassment offenses. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends as a brand-new warrant officer, the applicant was unfairly characterized by the command at Fort Huachuca, Arizona. The Board considered this contention but determined that there was insufficient evidence in the applicant’s AMHRR or applicant-provided evidence of the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Therefore, no discharge upgrade is warranted. (2) The applicant contends the applicant was unfairly punished and separated for something the applicant denies occurred. The Board considered this contention but determined that there was insufficient evidence to overcome the preponderance of evidence for the basis of separation established by the AR 15-6 investigation into this matter. Therefore, no discharge upgrade is 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 Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Intimate Partner Violence did not outweigh the medically unmitigated offenses of sexual harassment. The Board also considered the applicant's contentions regarding false accusations and unfair treatment by Command and found that the totality of the applicant's record does not warrant a discharge upgrade. 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. Therefore, the applicant’s General discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable discharge. (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 AR20200006301 1