1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 14 April 2020 b. Date Received: 24 April 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the multiple years of honorable service is deserving of an honorable discharge. The applicant’s legal counsel highlighted the fact the government had no substantial evidence to support the claim the applicant committed any acts which constituted serious misconduct. There was no evidence of the applicant attempting to engage in inappropriate relationships. The applicant was employed as a corrections officer for over a year and is now employed as a youth service specialist. An upgrade would allow the applicant the ability to advance in law enforcement. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 26 April 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 / General Under Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 27 June 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 6 November 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On diver’s occasions between on or about 1 June 2016 and on or about 25 April 2017, the applicant attempted to engage in inappropriate relationships with multiple junior Soldiers. (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 27 March 2018, the administrative separation board found the allegation of attempting to engage in inappropriate relationships with junior enlisted soldiers between on or about 1 June 2016 and on or about 25 April 2017, was supported by a preponderance the evidence. The board recommended the applicant be separated with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). On 23 May 2018, the applicant submitted a rebuttal to the separation board’s findings and recommendations. The applicant requested to be retained due to improper notice of the separation action. The applicant argued the notification was not specific enough and was a substantial error because it did not identify the type of attempted inappropriate relationships and it did not identify with whom the applicant allegedly attempted to engage in an inappropriate relationship with. On 24 May 2018, a Legal Review of the applicant’s separation found no legal objections to the applicant’s administrative separation board. The board’s proceedings, findings, and recommendation were found to be legally sufficient. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 4 June 2018 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 17 November 2015 / NIF b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: HS Graduate / 123 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 12W20, Carpentry and Masonry Specialist / 7 years, 7 months, 20 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 8 November 2010 – 16 November 2015 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Afghanistan (6 June 2012 – 4 March 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-3, AAM-2, ASUA, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, ACM-CS, AFSM, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR, MOVSM, NATO MDL, CAB, Air Assault Badge g. Performance Ratings: 1 May 2015 – 29 April 2016 / Highly Qualified 30 April 2016 – 20 October 2017 / Not Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 28 July 2017, reflects the applicant attempted to fail to obey a lawful general regulation on three separate occasions by wrongfully attempting to engage in inappropriate relationships with three different subordinate Soldiers. The punishment consisted of reduction to sergeant/E-5; forfeiture of $1,428 pay; extra duty for 45 days; and an oral reprimand. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, personal statement, DD Form 214, and various documents from the applicant’s AMHRR (51 total pages). 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant was employed as a corrections officer for over a year and is now employed as a youth service specialist. 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) 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, 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 multiple years of honorable service is deserving of an honorable discharge. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends, in effect, the applicant’s legal counsel highlighted the fact the government had no substantial evidence to support the claim the applicant committed any acts which constituted serious misconduct and there was no evidence of the applicant attempting to engage in inappropriate relationships. On 24 May 2018, a Legal Review of the applicant’s administrative separation board found no legal objections to the applicant’s administrative separation board. The board’s proceedings, findings, and recommendation were found to be legally sufficient. Additionally, the record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The applicant was employed as a corrections officer for over a year and is now employed as a youth service specialist. An upgrade would allow the applicant the ability to advance in law enforcement. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. Further, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities 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: Adjustment Disorder, TBI. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held an in-service diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder. Post-service, applicant is service- connected for TBI. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that medical notes reflect intact cognitive abilities; applicant was able to outline behaviors, request feedback reflecting an ability to recognize various viewpoints beyond first-person and possibility applicant’s perception was inaccurate, address skill deficits with active improvement, and arrive at solutions to prevent similar situations. (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 applicant’s Adjustment Disorder and TBI do not outweigh the applicant’s multiple attempts to engage in appropriate relationships with junior soldiers because medical evidence indicates applicant’s ability to prevent such situations. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the multiple years of honorable service is deserving of an honorable discharge. The Board considered the applicant’s seven years of service, including three years of overseas service, and the numerous awards received by the applicant but determined that these factors did not outweigh the applicant’s three offenses of attempts to engage in inappropriate relationships with junior soldiers. (2) The applicant contends the applicant’s legal counsel highlighted the fact the government had no substantial evidence to support the claim the applicant committed any acts which constituted serious misconduct and there was no evidence of the applicant attempting to engage in inappropriate relationships. The Board considered this contention and found insufficient evidence in the applicant’s AMHRR or applicant-provided evidence to support the contention. The evidence from applicant’s counsel was addressed at separation in the Legal Review of the applicant’s administrative separation board found no legal objections to the applicant’s administrative separation board. The board’s proceedings, findings, and recommendation were found to be legally sufficient. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering 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 Disorder and TBI did not excuse or mitigate the applicant’s multiple attempts to engage in appropriate relationships with junior soldiers because medical evidence indicates applicant’s ability to prevent such situations. The Board also considered the applicant's contentions regarding otherwise honorable service and impropriety in the separation process and found that totality of the applicant's record does not warrant a discharge upgrade. 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, 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 AR20200009030 1