1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 17 April 2020 b. Date Received: 24 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests, through counsel, an upgrade to honorable, and a change to the reentry (RE) code to 1, and narrative reason to “Secretarial Authority.” The applicant, through counsel seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant's chain of command made an error of discretion by improperly disregarding the applicant's clear struggles with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of the applicant's Army service. The applicant's command should have recognized that this decorated Soldier would not have normally acted in such manner but for PTSD playing a significant role. Further, the applicant's exceptional quality of service, length of service, and overall contributions to the Army warranted an honorable characterization of service when this situation is properly reviewed. The applicant ran into significant legal trouble in February 2017 while serving as a drill sergeant in D Company, 2nd Battalion, 60th Infantry Regiment. The applicant was charged with knowingly violating regulations prohibiting cadre members from fraternizing with trainees and engaging in personal relationships with them (see Exhibit 3). The applicant was also married at the time. This request is made for reasons of propriety and equity. The applicant meets the criteria within the Kurta memorandum as follows: Was there a condition or experience? The applicant served on two combat deployments (see Exhibit 2). The applicant saw significant combat action on both deployments. During the first deployment to Iraq, the applicant lost a friend who was killed by an enemy sniper, and the applicant’s lieutenant was shot in the chest. The applicant's medical records make numerous mentions of struggles with PTSD (see Exhibit 5 (disk - see application PDF)). The applicant completed a mental status examination (MSE) on 2 October 2018 on which the physician indicated the following: [Applicant] with severe combat related PTSD and major depressive disorder (MDD) and also with history of traumatic brain injury (TBI). Did it exist/occur during military service? On 21 August 2018, the applicant received the results of the applicant’s medical evaluation board (MEB) proceedings. After consideration of the case file (including all available clinical records, laboratory findings, and physical examinations) the board found that the applicant had PTSD which did not exist prior to service (see Exhibit 7). Does the condition/experience excuse or mitigate the discharge? Pursuant to the Kurta memorandum, conditions or experiences that may reasonably have existed at the time of discharge will be liberally considered as excusing or mitigating the discharge. Prior to the applicant's combat deployments, there were no indications of misconduct and had never experienced life-threatening situations which would have caused a subsequent diagnosis of PTSD. These combat deployments triggered the PTSD symptoms which led to the subsequent diagnosis. Therefore, it is reasonable to find that these conditions existed at the time of the applicant’s discharge and could have been viewed as a mitigating factor. The command’s failure to consider the applicant's PTSD as a mitigating factor to the discharge was a prima facie case of material error in discretion. Does the condition/experience outweigh the discharge? But-for the applicant's PTSD, the applicant may not have experienced the mental problems which lead to the applicant’s marital downfall. As a result of the applicant’s problems at home, the applicant began a relationship with a Soldier who was, at the time, in the early stages of discharging from the Army. The applicant was under the mistaken belief that the Soldier was no longer a trainee pursuant to Army Regulation. This Solider was a graduate of Army basic training and had failed the first advanced individual training (AIT) and was sent to 120th Adjutant General Battalion to await assignment to a follow-on duty station. At the time, this Soldier had communicated to the applicant a desire not to continue with military service and would be requesting a discharge. Because the Soldier was a basic training graduate, and failed AIT, the applicant no longer viewed this Soldier as a trainee. Mistake of fact is a defense to a crime where the mistaken belief, if it were true, would negate a mental state that's an element of the crime. In most situations, the mistake must be reasonable, but even an unreasonable mistake of fact can at least at times provide a defense if it negates a required specific intent. Premeditated misconduct is not generally excused by mental health conditions, including PTSD. In the instant case, the applicant's misconduct was not premeditated. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 30 August 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 10 February 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 3 October 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: In a summary court-martial the applicant was found guilty of Article 92 for engaging in a prohibited relationship with a trainee and for communicating with trainees via Snapchat. The applicant was also found guilty of Article 121 for wrongfully appropriate of a van, property of the United Sates Government, and Article 134 for having sexual intercourse with a woman not the applicant’s wife. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 4 October 2017 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA in accordance with the applicant’s offer to plea on 17 November 2017. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 22 October 2017 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 28 February 2017 / 3 years, 5 months b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 33 / 3 years of college / 119 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 11B3X, Infantryman / 13 years, 2 months, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: 28 November 2005 - 26 February 2017 / HD Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Iraq (16 January 2007 - 30 March 2008 and 12 July - 31 December 2011), Kuwait (1 January - 17 June 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-3, AAM-4, MUC, AGCM-3, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ICM-CS, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-3, CIB, EIB g. Performance Ratings: 1 March 2009 - 28 February 2010 / Among The Best 1 March 2010 - 9 March 2013 / Fully Capable 10 March 2013 - 24 June 2013 / Fully Capable 25 June 2013 - 10 April 2015 / Among The Best 11 April 2015 - 1 December 2015 / Fully Capable 2 December 2015 - 1 December 2016 / Highly Qualified 15 December 2017 - 3 December 2018 / Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial, reflects the applicant was charged with: Two specifications of violation of Article 92: Between on or about 14 February 2017 and on or about 1 March 2017, violate a lawful general order, by engaging in a prohibited relationship with another Soldier, not the applicant's wife, a trainee, such relationship not required by the training mission; guilty consistent with the plea; Between on or about 14 February 2017 and on or about 1 March 2017, violate a lawful general order, by communicating with trainees on Snapchat, transporting trainees to Walmart in a government owned non-tactical vehicle, eating with the trainees in the vehicle, all during a period when the trainees were not authorized to leave the barracks; guilty consistent with the plea; Violation of Article 121: Between on or about 14 February 2017 and on or about 1 March 2017, wrongfully appropriate a van, of a value of about $10,000, the property of the U.S. government; guilty consistent with the plea; Violation of Article 134: Between on or about 14 February 2017 and on or about 1 March 2017, wrongfully have sexual intercourse with another Soldier, a woman not the applicant 's wife, such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the Armed Forces; guilty consistent with the plea; The sentenced adjudged: Reduction to E-5; forfeiture of one-third of one month pay; restriction for 2 months. Law Enforcement Report - Final, dated 8 June 2017, reflects an investigation established the applicant committed the offenses of wrongful appropriation of government property and failure to obey a regulation between 10 February and 1 March 2017. The Staff Judge Advocate office opined that probable cause existed to believe the applicant committed the listed offenses. A DA Form 4833 (Commander Report of Disciplinary or Administrative Action), dated 27 February 2018, reflects the applicant was found guilty in a Summary Courts Martial for failure to obey a regulation and wrongful appropriation of government property. The applicant pled guilty to all charges. Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings, dated 21 August 2018, reflect the following diagnosis: PTSD was found to not meet AR 40-501 retention standards. The applicant’s Enlisted Record Brief, dated 11 February 2019, reflects the applicant was flagged for elimination - field initiated (BA), effective 8 August 2018; was ineligible for reenlistment due to pending separation (9V). The Assignment Eligibility Availability (AEA) code reflects AEA code “L” which has no assignment restrictions. The applicant was reduced from E-6 to E-5 effective 15 December 2017. FLAGS / AEA codes: BA / L RE/Prohibition codes: 9V i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 2 October 2018, reflects the applicant with severe combat related PTSD and MDD and also with history of TBI. The applicant will very much benefit from receiving disposition through the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) and medical retirement so that the applicant could continue receiving maximal care for service-related mental health disorders. The applicant would likely need an extended amount of care and this is the type of veteran who would be at risk of social dysfunction, financial strain, and worsening of mental health if not afforded the full medical care of retirement. The applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with depressed mood and anxiety; MDD, single episode, severe, without psychotic features; PTSD, chronic; right shoulder pain with SLAP tear; migraine HAs; mild TBI; 2nd degree heart block, gastroesophageal reflux disease; and Unspecified Insomnia disorder. Medical records list of diagnosis history reflects the applicant was seen for PTSD, unspecified at the 20th Medical Group on multiple visits from May through August 2018. (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of MSE, dated 5 July 2018, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. Behavioral health disorder was present resulting in duty limitations that may impact deployability. The applicant at the time did not meet medical retention standards, had surpassed medical retention decision point, and a referral to IDES was indicated. The applicant had been screened for PTSD and depression with positive results. The applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and had follow-up appointments with the Department of Behavioral Health. The command was advised to consider the influence of these conditions. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; Legal Brief with all listed exhibits 1 through 13 (includes partial case separation packet, DD Form 214, Enlisted Record Brief; six third-party letters); medical records. 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 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (5) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. (6) Paragraph 14-12c prescribes a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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 “JKQ” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). 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-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 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, and a change to the RE code to 1, and narrative reason to “Secretarial Authority.” 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 should be changed to “Secretarial Authority.” The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Misconduct (Serious Offense),” and the separation code is “JKQ.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the 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 as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends, in effect, the chain of command made an error of discretion by improperly disregarding the applicant's clear struggles with PTSD as a result of the applicant's Army service. The applicant's command should have recognized that this decorated Soldier would not have normally acted in such a manner but for PTSD playing a significant role. The AMHRR contains the following memorandums: Memorandum, dated 10 October 2018, from the applicant’s defense counsel requesting a medical retirement with consideration of the applicant’s behavioral health situation. The defense counsel referenced the Kurta memorandum. Memorandum, dated 22 October 2018, from Brigadier General (BG) M__ H. B__ Jr., that states, in accordance with ALARACT 070/2018 (Enlisted Administrative Separation Processing Guidance -Final Medical Disposition), BG B__ Jr. determined that the applicant's medical condition was not the direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct that led to the recommendation for separation and there did not exist other circumstances that warrant disability processing instead of further processing for administrative separation. Therefore, the applicant’s case would be processed through administrative separation proceedings. The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant's exceptional quality of service, length of service, multiple awards, and overall contributions to the Army warrant an honorable characterization of service. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. Five of the third party statements recognize the applicant’s good conduct while serving the Army and one speaks to the applicant volunteering at the Fort Jackson Youth Sports and Fitness Program while serving in the Army. 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: PTSD; MDD; Other specified depressive episodes; Mild TBI. (Note-diagnosis of Other specified depressive episodes is subsumed under the diagnosis of MDD). (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found all the applicant's BH conditions (PTSD, MDD, mild TBI) are related to miliary 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 there are no mitigating BH conditions. While the applicant has been diagnosed with MDD, PTSD, TBI and Other specified depressive disorders, none of these conditions mitigate his misconduct as none of these conditions affect one’s ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. Regarding the diagnosis of mild TBI, this diagnosis was made based upon the applicant’s report of being exposed to several IED blast explosions while deployed to Iraq in 2007 to 2008. Infrequently, a diagnosis of mild TBI can result in frontal lobe dysfunction (i.e., poor judgment and impaired occupational functioning) which can possibly lead to misconduct. Review of his personnel and medical records, however, does not indicate that the applicant suffered any decrement in occupational functioning secondary to his mild TBI. In fact, review of his military records indicates the applicant received an NCOER two years after his 2007-2008 Iraq deployment which rated him as “Among the best.” As the natural history of mild TBI is improvement over time, the receipt of an “Among the best” NCOER rating in 2010 indicates that his prior TBI had no effect on his frontal lobe functioning and, by extension, did not affect his 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 MDD, PTSD, TBI and Other specified depressive disorders outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation inappropriate relationship with a trainee, wrongful intercourse with a Soldier other than the applicant’s wife and wrongful use of government property offenses – for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends, in effect, the chain of command made an error of discretion by improperly disregarding the applicant's clear struggles with PTSD as a result of the applicant's Army service. The Board considered this contention and found no corroborating evidence to support the assertion. 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. (2) The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant's exceptional quality of service, length of service, multiple awards, and overall contributions to the Army warrant an honorable characterization of service. 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 MDD, PTSD, TBI and Other specified depressive disorders did not excuse or mitigate the inappropriate relationship with a trainee, wrongful intercourse with a Soldier other than the applicant’s wife and wrongful use of government property offenses. 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, and 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 AR20200007251 1