1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 15 June 2020 b. Date Received: 23 June 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 under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant was falsely accused of fraternization without any evidence other than the accuser’s statement, nor was the applicant allowed to have witnesses speak. The applicant was found guilty of fraternization and given an Article 15. The applicant decided not to appeal the Article 15 due to personal circumstances and the lack of support from the chain of command. When the applicant’s commander reviewed the applicant’s separation paperwork, the applicant was stunned to learn the charges warranted a separation and that the characterization of service was under other than honorable conditions. The applicant was informed the recommended characterization of service was merely a recommendation and that it would be changed to general or honorable. The applicant was suffering from depression, anxiety, insomnia, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) for several years in various degrees and times which was not considered in the separation process. The applicant had honorable service, including multiple deployments. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 07 June 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, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 30 August 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 12 June 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant wrongfully maintained a relationship with a junior enlisted Soldier that compromised, or appeared to compromise, the integrity of the supervisory authority or the chain of command, caused actual or perceived partiality or unfairness, was or was perceived to be, exploitative or coercive in nature, and created an actual or clearly predictable adverse impact on discipline, authority, morale, or the ability of the command to accomplish its mission. When questioned about the relationship, the applicant lied about the conduct and the nature and extent of the relationship and on several occasions, exposed a private body part in an indecent manner in a public place. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 13 June 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant waived consideration of the case by an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 8 August 2012 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 12 March 2010 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 32 / HS Graduate / 103 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 14S10, Avenger Crewmember / 16 years, 2 months, 2 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 25 June 1996 – 11 March 2010 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Bosnia (15 September 1997 – 21 June 1998), Iraq (10 January 2003 – 1 April 2003), (12 January 2005 – 6 January 2006), (12 March 2007 – 31 May 2008), (20 January 2010 – 12 January 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-CS-5, ARCOM-3, AAM-4, MUC, USA/USAF PUC, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, AFSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-4, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 1 April 2009 – 31 March 2010 / Among the Best 1 April 2010 – 31 March 2011 / Among the Best 1 April 2011 – 31 March 2012 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 6 June 2012, reflects the applicant violated a lawful regulation by wrongfully maintaining a relationship with private first class Z that compromised, or appeared to compromise, the integrity of the supervisory authority or the chain of command, caused actual or perceived partiality or unfairness, was or was perceived to be, exploitative or coercive in nature, and created an actual or clearly predictable adverse impact on discipline, authority, morale, or the ability of the command to accomplish its mission; on or about 30 September 2011, with intent to deceive, make a false official statement to a commissioned officer; and on divers occasions between on or about 11 April 2011 and on or about 30 September 2011 and between on or about 1 May 2011 and on or about 30 June 2011, the applicant intentionally exposed, in an indecent manner, a private body part in a public place. The punishment consisted of reduction to specialist/E-4; forfeiture of $1,182 pay per month for two months, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 11 December 2012; extra duty for 45 days; and an oral reprimand. Memorandum For Record (MFR), dated 3 October 2011, reflects, in part, an investigating officer (IO) pursuant to Army Regulation 15-6 to conduct an informal investigation into allegations of an inappropriate relationship and/or fraternization between the applicant and PFC Z. Based on the investigation the IO found there was a violation of the Army’s non-fraternization policy. The IO also found there was an inappropriate relationship between the applicant and PFC Z. The IO did not find enough support to state that either the applicant or PFC Z committed adultery as defined in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Based on all exhibits, the facts and circumstances show the applicant violated AR600-20 and there had been a compromise in the integrity of supervisory authority, unfairness in treatment, and improper use of rank or position for personal gain. The IO found the applicant was in violation of Article 107 regarding false official statement. It was recommended the applicant and PFC Z be punished under UCMJ, Article 92 as a violation of lawful general order. It was also recommended the applicant be punished under UCMJ, Article 107 for falsifying an official statement. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL X 4 days (21 January 2011 – 24 January 2011) / Returned j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: The applicant provides Health Records pertaining to in- service diagnosis of adjustment disorder with disturbance of emotions, major depressive disorder, recurrent episode moderate, and dysthymic disorder. (2) AMHRR Listed: A Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 31 May 2012, reflects the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The applicant was diagnosed with dysthymic disorder. The applicant had a positive screen for PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, DD Form 214, ERB, 4-page personal statement, Health Record 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has a great family and a good job. 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. (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) 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. (6) 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. (7) Paragraph 14-12c, states 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. 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. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the applicant was falsely accused of fraternization without any evidence other than the accuser’s statement. The applicant AMHRR contains an MFR, dated 3 October 2011, which reflects, in part, an IO pursuant to Army Regulation 15-6 conducted an informal investigation into allegations of an inappropriate relationship and/or fraternization between the applicant and PFC Z. Based on the investigation the IO found there was a violation of the Army’s non-fraternization policy. The IO also found there was an inappropriate relationship between the applicant and PFC Z. The IO did not find enough support to state that either the applicant or PFC Z committed adultery as defined in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Based on all exhibits, the facts and circumstances show the applicant violated AR600-20 and there had been a compromise in the integrity of supervisory authority, unfairness in treatment, and improper use of rank or position for personal gain. The IO found the applicant was in violation of Article 107 regarding false official statement. The applicant was informed the recommended characterization of service was merely a recommendation and that it would be changed to general or honorable. The applicant’s AMHRR is void of evidence indicating a change in the recommended of the characterization of service and the separation authority directed the characterization of service be under other than honorable conditions. The applicant was suffering from depression, anxiety, insomnia, and PTSD for several years in various degrees and times which was not considered in the separation process. The applicant’s AMHRR contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of in-service dysthymic disorder and a positive PTSD screen. The record shows the applicant underwent a MSE on 31 May 2012, which reflects the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant states there was honorable service, including four deployments. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. 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: Adjustment DO; MDD; Dysthymic DO; contends PTSD with positive screen. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found all of the diagnoses listed in Kurta 1 above occurred during military 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 the applicant has no mitigating BH conditions. While the applicant has been diagnosed with Adjustment DO, Dysthymic DO, MDD, and has screened positive for PTSD, none of these conditions mitigate fraternization, lying or indecent exposure as they do not affect 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. 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 conditions outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation for fraternization, lying or indecent exposure as they do not affect one’s ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the applicant was falsely accused of fraternization without any evidence other than the accuser’s statement. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant AMHRR contains an MFR, dated 3 October 2011, which reflects, in part, an IO pursuant to Army Regulation 15-6 conducted an informal investigation into allegations of an inappropriate relationship and/or fraternization between the applicant and a junior Soldier. Also, included in the memo were the IO findings that the applicant committed a violation of the Army’s non-fraternization policy and having an inappropriate relationship between the applicant and a junior Soldier. (2) The applicant was informed the characterization of service was merely a recommendation and that it would be changed to general or honorable. The Board considered the applicant contention and voted that the merit of this contention cannot be determined without knowing the complete facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge, which are not available in official records and were not provided by the applicant. The Board concluded that the applicant committed several serious offenses - violation of the Army’s non-fraternization policy, having an inappropriate relationship with a junior Soldier, indecent exposure and falsifying an official statement. Therefore, the applicant was discharged under the proper authority for the applicant’s characterization from service. (3) The applicant was suffering from depression, anxiety, insomnia, and PTSD for several years in various degrees and times which was not considered in the separation process. The Board considered this contention and determined that while the applicant has been diagnosed with Adjustment DO, Dysthymic DO, MDD, and has screened positive for PTSD, none of these conditions mitigate fraternization, falsifying an official statement, having an inappropriate relationship with a junior Soldier, and committing indecent exposure as they do not affect one’s ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. 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 Adjustment DO, Dysthymic DO, MDD, and having screened positive for PTSD, did not mitigate nor outweigh the committing several serious offenses for the reasons stated in section 9b (3), above. 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. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL – Absent Without Leave AMHRR – Army Military Human Resource Record BCD – Bad Conduct Discharge BH – Behavioral Health CG – Company Grade Article 15 CID – Criminal Investigation Division ELS – Entry Level Status FG – Field Grade Article 15 GD – General Discharge HS – High School HD – Honorable Discharge IADT – Initial Active Duty Training MP – Military Police MST – Military Sexual Trauma N/A – Not applicable NCO – Noncommissioned Officer NIF – Not in File NOS – Not Otherwise Specified OAD – Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) – Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF – Official Military Personnel File PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE – Re-entry SCM – Summary Court Martial SPCM – Special Court Martial SPD – Separation Program Designator TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury UNC – Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC – Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA – Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20200008737 1