1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 14 July 2020 b. Date Received: 21 July 2020 c. Counsel: Yes 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is honorable. The applicant, through counsel, requests a narrative reason change; to remove adverse administrative information, including General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) and GO Article 15 from the AMHRR; and to restore rank to Lieutenant Colonel. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, reducing the applicant to Captain (CPT) for purposes of retirement is in direct conflict with the legal mandates of Title 10 and Army Regulation 15-80. Both of those authorities dictate an officer’s grade of rank for retirement and prove the applicant should have been retired as a Lieutenant Colonel (LTC). The applicant has suffered the impact of the error of discretion, which resulted in the applicant’s retirement as a CPT since 2013. The error was prejudicial because it stripped the applicant of the guarantee of retiring at the rank which the applicant last honorably served, and the applicant’s accomplishments brought exceptional benefit to the Army and the Soldiers. Second, block 28 of the applicant’s DD Form 214 was proper and equitable as issued in August of 2013 when listed “Sufficient Service for Retirement.” There was no factual or legal basis to change that block to “Unacceptable Conduct.” Block 28 was unjustly changed without notice or due process afforded to the applicant. The change is contradicted by years of evidence, including records noting the applicant was suffering from “cognitive dysfunction” because of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at the time the applicant was accused of poor judgment. The change to block 28 improperly allowed symptoms of PTSD to be mischaracterized as unacceptable conduct. In doing so, the applicant was blamed for a line-of-duty mental injury which was no fault of the applicant’s own. Without action by the honorable Board, the applicant’s stellar service record and reputation will remain tarnished by the unlawful and inequitable actions surrounding the applicant’s retirement and DD Form 214, block 28, amendment. The applicant continues to receive outpatient mental health treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the VA rated the applicant 100 percent permanently and totally service-connected disabled for PTSD, which is characterized as combat-related. Counsel further details the contentions in the Legal Brief submitted with the application, including the impact of the deployments on the applicant’s mental health; self-medicating; the applicant’s contributions to the military; awards and decorations, including the 2009 PACE award; and contributing to saving the Department of Defense 5.4 billion dollars because of the applicant’s strategic analysis. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 26 July 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: Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Paragraph 6-17d and 4-2b / RNC / Honorable a. Date of Discharge: 30 November 2013 b. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 25 March 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b (5) for misconduct, moral, or professional dereliction, acts of personal misconduct, for the following reasons: In August 2012, the applicant wrongfully viewed websites associated with children as well as adult pornography on the applicant’s government computer while deployed in Afghanistan. A review of the computer activity on the applicant’s government issued computer revealed the applicant viewed adult pornography in addition to multiple websites which contained child pornography. The applicant frequently visited social network sites associated with underage individuals in sexual situations. While being investigated for pornographic material, it was discovered the applicant wrongfully possessed nandrolone-decanoate, a schedule III-controlled substance. (3) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (4) Board of Inquiry (BOI): On 31 May 2013, the applicant requested Retirement in Lieu of Elimination, to be released from active duty and assignment on 30 November 2013, and to be placed on the retired list on 1 December 2013, or as soon thereafter as practicable. (5) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 26 June 2013, the GOSCA recommended approval of the applicant’s request for retirement in lieu of elimination. / NIF (6) DA Board of Review for Eliminations: On 9 October 2013, after review by the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB), the separation authority approved the applicant’s Retirement in Lieu of Elimination and directed the applicant be placed on the Retired List in the grade of O-3 (Captain). (7) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 9 October 2013 / NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 15 February 2012 / 655 (1 year, 9 months, 17 days (OAD)) b. Age at Appointment: / Education: 50 / Master’s Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-5 / 15B, Aviation Combined Arm / 29 years, 6 months, 8 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 2 August 1985 – 1 April 1996 / HD USARCG, 2 April 1996 – 11 June 2002 / NA ARNG, 12 June 2002 – 11 July 2005 / HD AD, 18 December 2003 – 10 May 2005 / HD (Current Service) USARCG, 12 July 2005 – 5 April 2009 / NA AD, 12 September 2005 – 27 September 2007 / HD (Current Service) AD, 28 September 2007 – 26 September 2008 / HD (Current Service) AD, 6 April 2009 – 14 February 2012 / HD (Current Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Haiti, Hawaii, SWA / Afghanistan (15 April 2012 – 14 March 2013); Iraq (5 February 2004 – 4 February 2005) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-3 CS, BSM, MSM-2, AM, JSCM-2, ARCOM-3, AAM-2, NDSM, AFEM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, HSM, ASR, OSR, AFRM g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Memorandum for Record, subject: Commander’s Search Authorization – workspace of [Applicant], Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan, dated 21 August 2012, reflects on 21 August 2012, Criminal Investigation Division (CID), requested permission to conduct a search of the applicant’s workspace in the CJ-4 section. The applicant’s commander believed there was probable cause to believe control substances and evidence of possession of child pornography would have been found at the applicant’s workspace and authorized CID to conduct a search of the applicant’s personal workspace for any controlled substances, drug paraphernalia, or electronic media. Criminal Investigation Division Report of Investigation – Initial/SSI, dated 21 August 2012, reflects the applicant was under investigation for Wrongful Possession of Steroids and Child Pornography. The investigation established probable cause to believe on 20 August 2012, the applicant committed the offense of viewing images of child pornography when conducting a search of the applicant’s computer several images and videos of suspected child pornography were discovered. On 20 August 2012, a search, subsequent to a magistrates search authorization, of the applicant’s living quarters was conducted which revealed eight vials of suspected steroids concealed in two commercially available dietary supplement bottles. Drug chemistry exam of the suspected steroids were pending. On 19 and 20 August 2012, the applicant was read the rights and requested an attorney, invoking the rights. Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 5 October 2012, reflects the applicant tested positive for STE (steroids), during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing, conducted on 21 August 2012. Memorandum, subject: Sanctuary Retirement [Applicant], dated 1 November 2012, reflects the applicant’s request for Sanctuary Retirement was approved by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command for 30 November 2013, and the applicant would be transferred to the USAR Control Group (Retired). General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 5 February 2013, reflects the applicant viewed child pornography and inappropriate websites on the applicant’s government computer. A review of the computer activity on the applicant’s government issued computer revealed the applicant viewed multiple websites which contained child pornography. The applicant frequently visited social network sites associated with underaged individuals in sexual situations. The applicant submitted matters in extenuation and mitigation. General Officer Article 15, dated 12 March 2013, for in Afghanistan: Wrongfully using nandrolone-decanoate, a schedule III-controlled substance while receiving special pay under 37 U.S.C. section 310 (20 August 2012). Wrongfully possessing 23 millimeters of nandrolone-decanoate while receiving special pay (20 August 2012); and Wrongfully viewing and possessing pornography on a government computer in violation of General Order 1B, dated 13 March 2006, such conduct constituted conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman (20 August 2012). The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $500 pay per month for two months (suspended). Orders 098-0012, dated 8 April 2013, reflect the applicant was to be reassigned to the Fort Riley Transition Center, with a scheduled date of retirement from active duty, released from assignment and duty, effective 30 November 2013, at retired grade / date of rank: LTC / 12 July 2005, under authority AR 600-8-24 and HRC Memorandum, dated 1 November 2012. Orders 302-0013, dated 29 October 2013, reflect the unexecuted portion of Orders 098-0012, were rescinded, pertaining to the retirement of the applicant, authorized by AR 600-8-24 and HRC, electronic mail, dated 15 October 2013. Orders 302-0014, dated 29 October 2013, reflect the applicant was to be reassigned to the Fort Riley Transition Center, with a scheduled date of retirement from active duty, released from assignment and duty, effective 30 November 2013, at retired grade / date of rank: CPT / 1 December 2013, under authority AR 600-8-24 and HRC Memorandum, dated 15 October 2013. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Chronological Records of Medical Care, from 6 September 2012 to 23 February 2013, reflecting the applicant was diagnosed with depression; bipolar disorder; TBI; chronic PTSD; adjustment disorder, with disturbance of emotions and conduct; and episodic mood disorders. Department of Veterans affairs letter, dated 29 November 2019, reflecting the VA rated the applicant 100 percent service-connected disabled for PTSD (combat) and the VA rated the applicant service-connected disabled for numerous other medical conditions. (2) AMHRR Listed: Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Proceedings, dated 2 May 2013, reflects the applicant was found unfit for bipolar II disorder; traumatic right ankle and first MTP osteoarthritis; first MTP joint left foot with no objective evidence pes planus; tear of the supraspinatus tendon, osteoarthritis acromioclavicular joint; and osteo arthritis glenohumeral joint. The applicant was diagnosed and found medically fit for, but not limited to: PTSD chronic, moderate; other substance dependence (anabolic steroids); degenerative disc disease lumbar spine; post-traumatic headache; and a history of severe traumatic brain injury with residuals of headaches. The MEB recommended referral to the physical evaluation board (PEB). Report of Medical Examination dated 27 June 2013, the examining medical physician noted in the significant or disqualifying defects section: bipolar II disorder and ankle and shoulder pain. The examiner listed in the summary of defects and diagnoses section, among other medical conditions: traumatic brain injury (TBI), bipolar II disorder, ankle pain, and insomnia. The applicant was not qualified for service but opted to a military retirement. Report of Medical History dated 3 July 2013, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: TBI from an aircraft accident; coma for three days; amnesia of accident; facial reconstruction; depression; anxiety; bipolar; and PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Five DD Forms 214; DD Form 293; Legal Brief, with all listed enclosures; military service record; military awards; military service medical record; VA letter; and a third party character reference. 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) 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. (1) Paragraph 1-23 provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 1-23a, states an officer will normally receive an honorable characterization of service when the quality of the officer’s service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty, or the final revocation of a security clearance under DODI 5200.02 and AR 380-67 for reasons that do not involve acts of misconduct for an officer. (3) Paragraph 1-23b, states an officer will normally receive a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service when the officer’s military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A separation under general (under honorable conditions) normally appropriate when an officer: Submits an unqualified resignation; Separated based on misconduct; discharged for physical disability resulting from intentional misconduct or neglect; and, for final revocation of a security clearance. (4) Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty. (5) Paragraph 4-2b, prescribes for the elimination of an officer for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interests of national security. (6) Paragraph 4-20a (previously 4-24a), states an officer identified for elimination may, at any time during or prior to the final action in the elimination case elect one of the following options: (1) Submit a resignation in lieu of elimination; (2) request a discharge in lieu of elimination; and (3) Apply for retirement in lieu of elimination if otherwise eligible. (7) Chapter 6 outlines the policy and procedure for non-disability retirement of active duty commissioned and warrant officers to include a Army Guard Reserve commissioned and warrant officers who have 20 years or more of active federal service. (8) Paragraph 6-17d and Table 6-2, under the rules for processing a voluntary retirement application, provides the Human Resources Command (HRC) will verify the retirement eligibility of the officer and inform the appropriate Career Management Division within the Office of Personnel Management Directorate. When a retirement application is submitted ensure, it states “submitted in lieu of elimination.” 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 “RNC” as the appropriate code to assign commissioned officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2b and 6-17d, 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 a narrative reason change; to remove adverse administrative information, including the 2012 GOMOR and GO Article 15, from the AMHRR; and to restore rank to LTC. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed to “Secretarial Authority” or “Sufficient Service for Retirement.” The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, and Chapter 6, paragraph 6-17d, AR 600-8-24 with an honorable discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Unacceptable Conduct,” and the separation code is “RNC.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the 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, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends PTSD, TBI, bipolar II disorder, and other mental health issues affected behavior which led to the discharge and the VA rated the applicant 100 percent service- connected disabled for PTSD. The applicant provided medical documents reflecting the applicant was diagnosed with in-service depression; bipolar disorder; TBI; chronic PTSD adjustment disorder, with disturbance of emotions and conduct; and episodic mood disorder. The VA rated the applicant 100 percent service-connected disabled for PTSD, combat. The applicant provided a third-party statement attesting a significant change in the applicant’s behavior. The applicant underwent an MEB on 2 May 2013, which found the applicant unfit for bi-polar II disorder and a host of other medical conditions, but found the applicant fit for PTSD chronic, moderate; other substance dependence (anabolic steroids); degenerative disc disease lumbar spine; post traumatic headache; a history of severe traumatic brain injury, with residuals of headaches; and other conditions. The MEB recommended referral to a PEB. The applicant contends good service, including two combat tours. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends the separation orders, dated 8 April 2013, issued to the applicant for “Sufficient Service for Retirement,” was rescinded without explanation. The applicant’s AMHRR reflects the GOSCA initiated involuntary elimination action against the applicant after the applicant’s request for voluntary retirement was approved. The applicant voluntarily requested Retirement in Lieu of Elimination and the request was approved by the separation authority. The orders were rescinded based on an approved request from the applicant for Retirement in Lieu of Elimination. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends being reduced to O-3 / Captain without a review from the AGDRB and the applicant’s grade and rank should be restored to O-5 / LTC because of honorable service. The applicant’s AMHRR reflects the applicant’s elimination case was reviewed by the AGDRB before the applicant was separated at the grade / rank of O-3 / CPT. The applicant’s requested change to the DD Form 214 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 requests adverse administrative remarks in the service record, including the GOMORs and GO Officer Article 15, be removed from the applicant’s AMHRR. The applicant’s request does not fall within this board’s purview. The applicant may apply to the ABCMR. The third party statement provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. It recognizes the applicant’s good military service. 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: The applicant held in- service diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder, PTSD due to childhood, Mood Disorder, and Bipolar Disorder which was negated in- and post-service. Post-service, the applicant is service connected for combat related PTSD with notation of Cognitive Disorder NOS. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held in-service diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder, PTSD due to childhood, Mood Disorder, and Bipolar Disorder which was negated in- and post-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 child pornography is not a progression or sequela of the applicant’s diagnoses to include Cognitive Disorder. The misconduct requires several steps over time with attempts to evade detection. This supports intact cognitive functioning and not reflective of the afore noted diagnoses. In regard to steroid possession, this substance is not associated with relieving emotional distress as they do not counter anxiety or produce a calming state. Furthermore, hiding the steroids in an OTC bottle again reflects intact cognitive processes as it required purposeful, conscious, and planned choices to use and evade detection. (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 held in-service diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder, PTSD due to childhood, Mood Disorder, and Bipolar Disorder outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation for wrongfully viewed pornography websites of children and adults and wrongfully possessed nandrolone- decanoate, a schedule III controlled substance - for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed to “Secretarial Authority” or “Sufficient Service for Retirement.” The Board considered this contention and concurred with the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, and determine that despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the board, the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, PTSD, Mood Disorder, Bipolar Disorder and is connected for combat related PTSD with notation of Cognitive Disorder NOS did not excuse or mitigate the Unacceptable Conduct. statements the basis for separation. Also, the applicant received the appropriate characterization and the SPD code for the discharge specified in AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2B. An upgrade to the reentry code is not valid because Officers are not given upon discharge a reentry code, honorable or otherwise. (2) The applicant contends PTSD, TBI, bipolar II disorder, and other mental health conditions affected behavior which led to the discharge and the VA rated the applicant 100 percent service-connected disabled for PTSD. The Board liberally considered this contention, ultimately the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that any of the applicant’s medical conditions mitigated the basis for applicant’s separation because child pornography is not a progression or sequela of the applicant’s diagnoses to include Cognitive Disorder. (3) The applicant contends good service, including two combat tours. The Board considered the applicant’s 29 years of service, including combat tours in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with the numerous awards received by the applicant but determined that these factors did not outweigh the applicant’s misconduct - wrongfully viewed pornography websites of children and adults and wrongfully possessed nandrolone-decanoate, a schedule III controlled substance basis for separation. (4) The applicant contends the separation orders, dated 8 April 2013, issued to the applicant for “Sufficient Service for Retirement,” was rescinded without explanation. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately found this contention non- persuasive during deliberations due to the applicant’s AMHRR contained a document signed by the applicant on 13 May 2023 requesting to be released from active duty in accordance with AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-20 for voluntarily Retirement in Lieu of Elimination. The request was approved by the separation authority therefore, the applicant orders were rescinded based on the approved request from the applicant request for Retirement in Lieu of Elimination. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. (5) The applicant contends being reduced to O-3 / Captain without a review from the AGDRB and the applicant’s grade and rank should be restored to O-5 / LTC because of honorable service. The board took this contention into consideration and determine that the applicant’s request 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. (6) The applicant requests adverse administrative remarks in the service record, including the GOMORs and GO Officer Article 15, be removed from the applicant’s AMHRR. The board took this contention into consideration and determine that the applicant’s request 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. 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 narrative reason because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, PTSD, Mood Disorder, Bipolar Disorder and service combat related PTSD with notation of Cognitive Disorder NOS outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation for wrongfully viewed pornography websites of children and adults and wrongfully possessed nandrolone-decanoate, a schedule III controlled substance. As such, the applicant received the appropriate narrative reason and the discharged was both proper and equitable. (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. 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 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 AR20200007096 1