1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 14 June 2018 b. Date Received: 31 July 2020 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority. The applicant through counsel seeks relief contending, in effect, at the time of his discharge, the applicant was suffering from serious medical conditions such as chronic lower back pain and PTSD. He struggles with his PTSD on a daily basis. He receives psychological treatment at Mindful Behavioral Healthcare in Kissimmee, Florida for his PTSD, anxiety, depression, and bipolar disorder. His PTSD was the root cause of his misconduct that ultimately led to his other than honorable discharge from the Army. He would like to receive the medical services that he need and has not received from the VA. He served honorable for more than seven years with two combat deployments. Had his chain of command identified his PTSD as a mitigating factor in his misconduct, he would not have received an other than honorable discharge. He has taken great strides to prove to his family, friends, and community that he is an upstanding civilian and dedicated family man. His discharge is punitive in nature, it stigmatizes the applicant's reputation and impedes his ability to gain employment. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review at the time in the service record, the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA), and Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV), notes indicate no BH diagnoses. The applicant is not service connected and VA records are void of contact. In summary, the applicant does not have a BH diagnosis that is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 6 November 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 608-8-24, Paragraph 4-2b / JNC / NA / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 6 October 2009 c. Separation Facts: extracted from prior records review AR20100006954 (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 13 April 2009 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was required to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2b and 4-2c, due to his misconduct, moral, or professional dereliction. He was notified of the following reasons: making false statements on two occasions (10 November 2008 and 10 November 2008); having an inappropriate relationship with the wife of a deployed Soldier between (1 June 2008 and 1 December 2008); dereliction in the performance of his duties by failing to maintain accountability of ammunition which resulted in the loss of 1,320 rounds of 5.56 mm ball rounds (1 December 2008); receiving an Article 15 for these offenses (1 April 2009); and being relieved from his command (13 April 2009). (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 26 June 2009, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by a Board of Inquiry contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than genera (under honorable conditions) and did not submit a statement in his own behalf: The GCMSCA disapproved the conditional waiver request and directed a Board of Inquiry (BOI). (5) Administrative Separation Board/BOI: 1 July 2009, the applicant appeared, with counsel, before a BOI (Show Cause Board). The Board found the allegations were supported by the evidence and warranted separation. The Board recommended separation with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 15 September 2009, the Department of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board recommended the applicant's elimination from the Army with issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 17 September 2009, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board and directed the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 August 2002 / 3 years / Additional Active Duty Service Obligation / 3 years / 14 September 2007 b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 27 / BA Degree / NA c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-3 / 88A Transportation, 8 years, 1 month, 10 days / block 12e on the applicant's DD Form 214 total prior inactive service, is incorrect and should read 1 year, 6 months, 19 days to account for ROTC service. d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USARCG (ROTC), 8 February 2001 to 23 August 2002 / NA Appointed 2LT / USAR, 24 August 2002 to 26 August 2002 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / SWA, Iraq x2, 13 June 2003 to 4 February 2004 and 23 January 2006 to 25 March 2007 f. Awards and Decorations: BSM, ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTEM, ICM-CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR-3, NATO MDL, CAB, JMUA g. Performance Ratings: 1 January 2006 to 1 March 2008, Best Qualified 2 March 2008 to 2 April 2009, Unsatisfactory Performance, Do Not Promote h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: GO Article 15, dated 1 April 2009, for having received a lawful command from MAJ C.S., his superior commissioned officer, to immediately stop visiting spouses in a way that might cause negative perceptions, or words to that effect, did willfully disobey the same (10 November 2008); he knew of his duties at or near Sennelegar, Germany, was derelict in the performance of his duties, in that he willfully failed to return to the ARRCADE Fusion NATO exercise to work as the exercise logistics officer, as it was his duty to do (9 November 2008); with intent to deceive, make to MAJ C.S., an official statement, that his daughter was scheduled to have surgery on 10 November 2008, or words to that effect, which statement was totally false, and was then known by him to be so false (20 October 2008); with intent to deceive, make to LTC K.A., an official statement, that he came back at 2230 last night and stayed for forty-five minutes, but no one was there so he left, or words to that effect, which statement was totally false, and was then known by him to be so false (10 November 2008); and wrongfully and willfully engage in a notorious relationship of an inappropriate familiarity with Mrs. Y.A., a woman who is married to an enlisted Soldier who was deployed to Afghanistan, which conduct was unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, and of a nature to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces between (1 June 2008 and 10 November 2008); forfeiture of $2,000 pay for two months and a written reprimand. A punitive General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 1 April 2009, for conduct unbecoming an officer, violating a lawful order, dereliction of duty, and lying to his superior officers. He openly engaged in an inappropriate relationship with the spouse of a Soldier who was deployed to Afghanistan. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Physical Profile, permanent, 9 January 2009, revealed the applicant's medical conditions as chronic low back pain and PTSD. The profile indicated he needed further mental evaluation for PTSD. Mindful Behavioral Healthcare document, dated 14 September 2017, shows the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, unspecified, bipolar II disorder and generalized anxiety disorder. He was prescribed medications for these conditions. Mindful Behavioral Healthcare document, dated 8 November 2017, 5 December 2017 and 18 January 2018, respectively relates the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, chronic, bipolar disorder, current episode mixed, moderate, generalized anxiety disorder and insomnia, unspecified. He was prescribed medications for these conditions. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); attorney's brief (seven pages); Exhibit 1, DD Form 214; Exhibit 2, Enlisted Record Brief; Exhibit 3, GO Article 15 (two pages); Exhibit 4, GO Article 15 appeal; Exhibit 5, GO Punitive GOMOR; Exhibit 6, Notification of permanent profile, Physical Profile; Exhibit 7, Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings (two pages); Medical Board Summary; Exhibit 8, Physical Evaluation Board Proceedings (three pages); Exhibit 9, discharge orders 162-0001 (three pages); Exhibits 10-11, Officer Elimination Case; Exhibit 12, Physical Profile; Exhibit 13, Family Physicians of Kissimmee handwritten document; Exhibit 14, Mindful Behavioral Healthcare documents (16 pages); Exhibit 15, Officer Evaluation Reports (20 pages); four support / character statements; GO Article 15 (two pages); GO Punitive GOMOR; Memorandum for Record, date of signature; GO Article 15 appeal; and Exhibit 16, three support / character statements. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interest of national security. A discharge of honorable, general, or under other than honorable conditions characterization of service may be granted. 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 "BNC" as the appropriate code to assign officer Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b, unacceptable conduct. National Defense Authorization Act 2017 provided specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) in connection with combat or sexual assault or sexual harassment as a basis for discharge review. Further, it provided that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; as a basis for the discharge. In August 2017, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provided further clarifying guidance to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by Army officers. It brought discredit on the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant's unacceptable conduct diminished the quality of his service below meriting a general or an honorable discharge at the time of separation. The applicant provided no corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the unacceptable conduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained on active duty. The applicant requests a change to the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating officer Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JNC" as the appropriate code to assign officer Soldiers, who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, unacceptable conduct. The regulation further stipulates no deviation is authorized. The applicant through counsel seeks relief contending, at the time of his discharge, the applicant was suffering from serious medical conditions such as chronic lower back pain and PTSD. The record of evidence (physical profile., permanent), shows the applicant had medical conditions of chronic lower back Pain and PTSD. The profile indicated he needed further mental evaluation for PTSD. The applicant further contends he struggles with his PTSD on a daily basis; and he receives psychological treatment at Mindful Behavioral Healthcare in Kissimmee, Florida for his PTSD, anxiety, depression, and bipolar disorder. The record of evidence (Mindful Behavioral Healthcare) documents, indicated the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, chronic, bipolar disorder, current episode mixed, moderate, generalized anxiety disorder and insomnia, unspecified. The applicant also contends, his PTSD was the root cause of his misconduct that ultimately led to his other than honorable discharge from the Army; and had his chain of command identified his PTSD as a mitigating factor in his misconduct, he would not have received an other than honorable discharge. The applicant bears the burden of presenting of substantial and credible evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that had his chain of command identified PTSD was a mitigating factor to his misconduct. The applicant additionally contends, he would like to receive the medical services that he need and has not received from the VA. Eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Moreover, the applicant contends, he served honorable for more than seven years with two combat deployments. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. Furthermore, the applicant contends, he has taken great strides to prove to his family, friends, and community that he is an upstanding civilian and dedicated family man. The applicant is to be commended for his efforts. However, this contention is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued. Lastly, the applicant contends, his discharge is punitive in nature, it stigmatizes the applicant's reputation and impedes his ability to gain employment. The Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. However, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 6 November 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NCO - Noncommissioned Officer SCM - Summary Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial BH - Behavioral Health HD - Honorable Discharge NOS - Not Otherwise Specified SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OAD - Ordered to Active Duty TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP - Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS - Entry Level Status MST - Military Sexual Trauma PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable RE - Reentry VA - Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20200007603 1