1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 5 May 2020 b. Date Received: 12 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 bad conduct. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant was quickly promoted to E-4 within 2 years and received awards. The applicant's biggest mistake was when the applicant decided to deal with the wrong person and let that person deposit stolen checks into the applicant's bank account and regrets this decision. The applicant is the victim in this case, never received an appeal, and was not properly represented. After the applicant was released in March 1997 for completing a 30-day sentence to confinement, the applicant was still going to work until mid- May. The new first sergeant told the applicant to go home and that someone would be in touch. That was the last time the applicant heard from anyone in the Army. On 29 June 2000, the applicant started trying to get the applicant's DD Form 214. Through assistance of a congressman in 2006, the applicant was informed in 2007 that the National Personnel Records Center did not receive a record for the applicant. Two years after working with the congressman's office, the applicant started receiving the following correspondence from the Department of the Army. Letter of Debarment, 18 January 2008, Fort Sill, OK, which the applicant has never been. Orders, 23 January 2008, to report to Fort Sill, OK, by 29 January 2008 to receive a discharge date. DD Form 214, 29 January 2008, with several errors such as 14 years and 3 months in service (see block 12), blocks 8a (Last Duty Assignment in Major Command) and 8b (Station where Separated) are incorrect, and block 9 (Command to which Transferred) has N/A. May 2008 received DA Form 2139-E (Finance Audit), Leave and Earning statements, and a military pay voucher reflecting information the applicant does not understand but it has money moving around in the applicant's name and social security number up until August 1998, a year and half after the applicant was sent home. This should be investigated further. DA Form 4833 (Commander Report of Disciplinary or Administrative Action), 23 January 2019 (30 June 1997), has General Court Martial (GCM) marked in block D under Action Taken section, and has Bad Conduct typed in block H next to several Xs' which seems to look like something was changed. Special Court Martial Order (SCMO), 23 May 2002, Fort Sill, OK, reflecting the applicant received a SCM, however the Commander Report of Disciplinary or Administrative Action form reflects GCM. The applicant's military records are incorrect including the DD Form 214 and the applicant was never properly out-processed or cleared. The applicant believes that their actions as a 20 year old Soldier should not warrant a lifetime of punishment. The applicant's son died, the applicant loss a little brother, was divorced, and the applicant's mom and stepdad split. The applicant further details the contentions in two allied self-authored statements provided with the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 11 September 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, after carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review and all other evidence presented, the Board determined that clemency is warranted based on the applicant's length of service and the discharge having served its purpose. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief by upgrading the applicant's characterization of service to General, Under Honorable Conditions. Please see Section 10 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: Court-Martial (Other) / AR 635-200, Chapter 3 / JJD / RE-4 / Bad Conduct b. Date of Discharge: 29 January 2008 c. Separation Facts: (1) Pursuant to Special Court-Martial Empowered to Adjudge a Bad-Conduct Discharge: As announced by SCMO Number 5, 8 April 1997, on NIF, the applicant was found guilty of the following: NIF (2) Adjudged Sentence: Reduction to E-1; to be confined for 30 days, and to be discharged from the service with a Bad Conduct discharge. (3) Date / Sentence Approved: 8 April 1997 / NIF (4) Appellate Reviews: The record of trial was forwarded to The Judge Advocate General of The Army for review by the Court of Military Review. The United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the approved findings of guilty and the sentence. (5) Date Sentence of BCD Ordered Executed: 23 May 2002 per SCMO Number 24. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 14 September 1993 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / 11th Grade / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 71L10, Administrative Specialist / 14 years, 3 months, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, AGCM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: SCMO as described in previous paragraph 3c. The applicant provided the CID Report of Investigation - Final (C), 12 March 1997, reflecting an investigation established probable cause to believe the applicant committed the offenses of Conspiracy, Larceny, Forgery, and False Official Statement. The applicant falsely reported person(s) unknown had deposited checks into the applicant's bank account. (Name masked) confessed to endorsing the checks, depositing the checks, and subsequently withdrawing the funds, knowing the checks were stolen and forged by (name masked). (Name masked) acted in concert with the applicant, the previous name that is masked forged (name masked) signature on the stolen checks, which the applicant then deposited, and withdrew from the bank account. On 22 July 1996, the applicant admitted to watching (name masked) forge (name masked) signature to two personal checks which the applicant then endorsed and deposited into the applicant's personal bank account. The applicant admitted knowing the checks were stolen at the time the applicant endorsed them and knew the applicant's endorsement of those checks and subsequent withdrawal of the funds was illegal. On 23 August 1996, the applicant denied the applicant had authored additional checks collected from AAFES. The applicant further denied knowing who authored them. The applicant provided the Commander Report of Disciplinary or Administrative Action, 30 June 1997, reflecting the applicant committed the offenses of Conspiracy, False Official Statement, Forgery, Larceny of Government Property, and Larceny of Private Funds. The applicant was sentenced to reduction from E-4 to E-1, confinement for 1 month, and a bad conduct discharge. Orders 023-0669, 23 January 2008, reflect the applicant was to be reassigned to the U.S. Army Transition Point, Fort Sill, OK and discharged on 29 January 2008 from the Regular Army. The applicant's DD Form 214, reflects the applicant had not completed the first full term of service. The applicant was discharged under the authority of AR 635-200, chapter 3, with a narrative reason of Court-Martial, Other. The DD Form 214 was not authenticated with the applicant's electronic signature. The applicant had lost time for the period 27 February to 29 March 1997 and excess leave from 30 March 1997 to 29 January 2008. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 31 days (CMA, 27 February - 29 March 1997) / NIF a. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214; separation orders; two self- authored statements; congressional correspondence; four third party letters; finance documents; case separation documents; CID Report; awards; DD Form 2168. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant worked for a security company for 1 year, NCS Pearson for 2 years, General Veterans Land board, a property management company as a property inspector, a mail courier company, and worked as a locksmith and cable man. The applicant has worked at range control for 16 years and was promoted to a supervisory role. The applicant worked on Fort Hood for Katmai/Northrop Grumman from 2004-2022. The applicant also works as a Texas Realtor. 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. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for separation specifically allows such characterization. (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) Paragraph 3-11 states a Soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial. The appellate review must be completed, and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. Questions concerning the finality of appellate review should be referred to the servicing SJA. 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 "JJD" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 3, Court-Martial (other). 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-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 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 or general (under honorable conditions). The applicant's AMHRR, the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's AMHRR indicates the applicant was adjudged guilty by a court-martial and the sentence was approved by the convening authority. Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process. The Board is empowered to change the discharge only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. The applicant's AMHRR is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. The applicant's AMHRR does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was not authenticated by the applicant's electronic signature. The applicant's DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 3, by reason of Court- Martial (Other), with a characterization of service of bad conduct. The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant was quickly promoted to E-4 within 2 years and received awards. The Board will consider the applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends, in effect, to be a victim in this case that never got an appeal, and was not properly represented. The applicant provided the CID Report of Investigation - Final (C), 12 March 1997, that reflects an investigation established probable cause to believe the applicant committed the offenses of Conspiracy, Larceny, Forgery, and False Official Statement. The applicant falsely reported person (s) unknown had deposited checks into the applicant's bank account. (Name masked) confessed to endorsing the checks, depositing the checks, and subsequently withdrawing the funds, knowing the checks were stolen and forged by (name masked). (Name masked) acted in concert with the applicant, the previous name that is masked forged (name masked) signature on the stolen checks, which the applicant then deposited, and withdrew from the bank account. On 22 July 1996, the applicant admitted to watching (name masked) forge (name masked) signature to two personal checks which the applicant then endorsed and deposited into the applicant's personal bank account. The applicant admitted knowing the checks were stolen at the time the applicant endorsed them and knew the applicant's endorsement of those checks and subsequent withdrawal of the funds was illegal. On 23 August 1996, the applicant denied the applicant had authored additional checks collected from AAFES. The applicant further denied knowing who authored them. The applicant's AMHRR is void of the case separation file. The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant received no guidance after being released from in March 1997 for a 30-day sentence to confinement. The new first Sergeant instructed the applicant to go home, they would be in touch, and that was the last time the applicant heard from anyone in the Army. Two years after requesting assistance from a congressman, the applicant began receiving correspondence from the Department of the Army. Letter of Debarment, 18 January 2008, Fort Sill, OK, which the applicant has never been. The military records provided by the applicant reflects the applicant was assigned to 3d Signal Brigade, Fort Hood, TX. Analyst notes this separation order was produced by the U.S. Installation Management Command, Fort Sill, OK, 10 years, 9 months, and 21 days after the applicant completed the 30-day sentence to confinement. This order was received with the congressman's office correspondence letter, 28 April 2008. Orders 023-0669, 23 January 2008, to report to Fort Sill, OK, by 29 January 2008 to receive a discharge date. Analyst notes this separation order was produced by the U.S. Installation Management Command, Fort Sill, OK, 10 years, 9 months, and 26 days after the applicant completed the 30-day sentence to confinement. This order was also received with the congressman's office correspondence letter, 28 April 2008. The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant's military records are incorrect including the DD Form 214. The DD Form 214, 29 January 2008, reflects the applicant served for 14 years and 3 months (see block 12), blocks 8a (Last Duty Assignment in Major Command) and 8b (Station Where Separated) are incorrect, and block 9 has N/A. Analyst notes the DD Form 214 reflects in block 12c (Net Active Service this Period) 14 years, 3 months, 13 days. Block 18 (Remarks) reflects excess leave from 30 March 1997 to 29 January 2008 (10 years, 10 months). Analyst notes the DD Form 214 reflects in blocks 8a and 8b, Personnel Control Facility, GSB, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Sill, Transition Center, and Fort Sill, OK 73503-5100. SCMO Number 24, 23 May 2002, reflects the applicant was last assigned to A Battery, Personnel and Support Battalion, U.S. Army Field Artillery Center and Fort Sill, Fort Sill, OK (formerly assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 3d Signal Brigade, Fort Hood, TX). Analyst notes the DD Form 214 reflects in block 9 (Command to which Transferred) as N/A. AR 635-5 (Separation Documents) states in Table 2-1, separation type - discharge with a Soldier status of no further military status, enter in block 9: "NA." The applicant contends, in effect, in May 2008 received DA Form 2139-E (Finance Audit), Leave and Earning statements, and a military pay voucher showing information the applicant does not understand but it has money moving around in the applicant's name and social security number up until August 1998, a year and half after the applicant was sent home. The applicant's request to investigate this information does not fall within this board's purview. 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, in effect, to have received the Commander Report of Disciplinary or Administrative Action form, 23 January 2019 (30 June 1997), which reflects GCM marked in block D under Action Taken section, however the SCMO Number 24, 23 May 2002, reflects SCM. The applicant's AMHRR is void of the case separation file, specifically the Department of the Army Report a Result of Trial and/or the Confinement Order which would reflect if the applicant received a SCM or GCM. The applicant contends, in effect, to have received the Commander Report of Disciplinary or Administrative Action form, 23 January 2019 (30 June 1997), reflecting Bad Conduct typed in block H next to several Xs' which seems to look like something was changed. The applicant's AMHRR is void of the case separation file which may have assisted in identifying what was changed. The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant was never properly out-processed or cleared. Due to the lack of evidence, specifically, upon release from confinement and thereafter it is unknown as to what occurred that resulted in the lengthy amount of time it took to process the applicant for separation from the Army. SCMO Number 24, 23 May 2002, reflects it took the Army 5 years, 1 month, and 16 days to affirm the applicant's sentence and an additional 5 years, 8 months, 1 days to out-process the applicant. The applicant contends, in effect, their actions as a 20 year old Soldier should not warrant a lifetime of punishment. The Board is empowered to change the discharge only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. The applicant contends, in effect, has worked for a security company, for NCS Pearson, for General Veterans Land board, for a property management company, for range control, for Katmai/Northrop Grumman, for a mail courier company, and work as a locksmith, cable man, and continues to work as a Texas Realtor. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. 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 third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's character and performance, and recognize the applicant's good conduct after leaving the Army. One of the third party statements spoke highly of the applicant during their initial Army assignment. 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: Major Depressive Disorder; Unspecified Anxiety Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? No. The Board's Medical Advisor found both diagnoses were made post-service by the VA. (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 VA has diagnosed the applicant with MDD and Unspecified Anxiety DO, these diagnoses were made in 2017, nine years after the applicant was discharged from the Army. Without more contemporaneous medical documentation, no decision regarding medical mitigation can be made. Of note, even if the applicant were service connected for MDD and/or Unspecified Anxiety DO, neither diagnosis would mitigate the applicant's misconduct as neither MDD nor Unspecified Anxiety DO affects 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. 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 Major Depressive Disorder and Unspecified Anxiety Disorder outweighed the applicant's medically unmitigated offenses of Conspiracy, Larceny, Forgery, and False Official Statement. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant was quickly promoted to E-4 within 2 years and received awards. The Board considered the totality of the applicant's record and determined that the applicant's service warranted an upgrade to General characterization. (2) The applicant contends, in effect, to be a victim in this case that never got an appeal, and was not properly represented. The Board considered this contention but found insufficient evidence in the applicant's AMHRR or applicant-provided evidence to support this contention. (3) The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant received no guidance after being released from a 30-day sentence to confinement in March 1997. The Board considered this contention but found insufficient supporting evidence. Therefore, further upgrade is not warranted. (4) The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant's military records are incorrect including the DD Form 214, specifically, the DD Form 214, 29 January 2008, reflects the applicant served for 14 years and 3 (see block 12), blocks 8a (Last Duty Assignment in Major Command) and 8b (Station Where Separated) are incorrect, and block 9 has N/A. The Board determined that the applicant's requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of the ADRB. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using a DD Form 293 regarding this matter. A DD Form 293 may be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization or online at https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/forms/dd/dd0293.pdf. (5) The applicant contends, in effect, in May 2008 received DA Form 2139-E (Finance Audit), Leave and Earning statements, and a military pay voucher showing information the applicant does not understand but it has money moving around in the applicant's name and social security number up until August 1998, a year and half after the applicant was sent home. The Board determined that the applicant's requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of the ADRB. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using a DD Form 293 regarding this matter. A DD Form 293 may be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization or online at https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/forms/dd/dd0293.pdf. (6) The applicant contends, in effect, to have received the Commander Report of Disciplinary or Administrative Action form, 23 January 2019 (30 June 1997), which reflects GCM marked in block D under Action Taken section, however the SCMO Number 24, 23 May 2002, reflects GCM. The Board determined that the applicant's requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of the ADRB. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using a DD Form 293 regarding this matter. A DD Form 293 may be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization or online at https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/forms/dd/dd0293.pdf. (7) The applicant contends, in effect, to have received the Commander Report of Disciplinary or Administrative Action form, 23 January 2019 (30 June 1997), reflecting Bad Conduct Discharge typed in block H next to several Xs' which seems to look like something was changed. The Board determined that the applicant's requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of the ADRB. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using a DD Form 293 regarding this matter. A DD Form 293 may be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization or online at https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/forms/dd/dd0293.pdf. (8) The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant was never properly out-processed or cleared. The Board considered this contention but found insufficient evidence in the applicant's AMHRR or applicant-provided evidence to support this contention. (9) The applicant contends, in effect, their actions as a 20 year old Soldier should not warrant a lifetime of punishment. The Board considered this contention in determining to upgrade the applicant's characterization of service to General. (10) The applicant contends, in effect, has worked for a security company, for NCS Pearson, for General Veterans Land board, for a property management company, for range control, for Katmai/Northrop Grumman, for a mail courier company, and work as a locksmith, cable man, and continues to work as a Texas Realtor. The Board considered the applicant's post-service accomplishments during proceedings but determined that they do not warrant further upgrade. c. The Board determined that clemency is warranted based on the applicant's length of service and the discharge having served its purpose. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief by upgrading the applicant's characterization of service to General, Under Honorable Conditions. The applicant has exhausted the appeal options available with ADRB. However, the applicant may still apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. 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 to change the applicant's characterization of service to General due to the applicant's length of service and the discharge having served its purpose. Thus the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: General, Under Honorable Conditions 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 AR20200006649 1