1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 15 June 2020 b. Date Received: 25 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable and a narrative reason change to disability. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, of having a discharge that is inequitable under current policies due to mental illness. The applicant contends of being diagnosed with anxiety (rated 50%) by the Department of Veterans Affairs for that alone) during a final health evaluation before being discharged from the service. The applicant believes receiving that rating, one must demonstrate “some impairment in ability to function socially and at work with lack of reliability and productivity, due to symptoms such as trouble understanding, memory loss (forgetting to do things) poor judgment, mood disturbances, trouble with work and social relationships, and/or having one or more panic attacks weekly.” This mental illness clearly developed during time as an Active Army Officer, beginning as a USMA graduate and high performer in 2011 and gradually receiving sub-par evaluation before starting the Civil Affairs Qualification Course in 2015. In May 0f 2014, the applicant was personally affected by a helicopter crash that killed a Soldier in his Platoon and severely injured his Platoon Sergeant. Over the next three years, his performance gradually decreased due to the severe stress and emotional trauma of helping his Soldiers, their familied, and himself through that loss. Since his discharge in 2018, the applicant contends of not being able to hold a job, has not been able to maintain healthy relationships and has put himself in a serious financial hardship. These self-destructive behaviors appear to have characteristic of anxiety. The applicant is currently being treated by a Veterans Affairs Outpatient Hospital with medicine and check-ins. There is substantial doubt that the applicant character of discharge would have been the same if the Army would have caught this mental illness prior to his final health evaluation immediately before discharge. It is believed the applicant’s discharge status should therefore be upgraded to honorable. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 23 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: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2 and 4-24 / BNC / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 5 June 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 15 June 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2 for misconduct, moral, or professional dereliction; for the following reasons: Conduct unbecoming an officer. Specifically, on or about 10 March 2016, received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand for engaging in an inappropriate and adulterous relationship with an enlisted Soldier, who was married to another enlisted Soldier, and for lying to an Investigation Officer when questioned about the relationship; Acts of personal misconduct. Specifically, between on or about 1 October 2016 and 19 December 2016, engaged in a romantic relationship with a married enlisted Soldier. This relationship involved the Soldier spending the night over that the applicant’s apartment on multiple occasions. Aggravating this breach of trust was that for several weeks the spouse of his paramour, who was also an enlisted Soldier, was away at mandatory Army training. Additionally, during the investigation the applicant rendered a false official statement to the Investigating Officer when he wrote in his sworn statement that; “I never had sex with Sergeant C.”; and Was issued a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 10 March 2016 that was filed in the applicant Army Military Human Resource Record for the conduct described in the paragraphs above. (3) Legal Consultation Date: The applicant acknowledged on 21 July 2017, of having been informed he was being considered for elimination. The applicant voluntarily tendered his resignation from the Army under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, chapter 4 in lieu of further elimination proceedings, conditioned on receiving no worse that a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge certificated. The applicant elected to waive any right to either appear before a board of officers with legally qualified counsel or to submit matters in explanation, rebuttal, or defense concerning the allegations in his case. (4) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 7 September 2017, the GOSCA, after careful consideration of the applicant’s case and his request for resignation, recommended approval of the applicant’s request for resignation and that the applicant be separated from the Army with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterizations of service. (5) DA Board of Review for Eliminations: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: On 18 May 2018 the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) accepted the applicant’s resignation and directed the applicant’s discharge from the United States Army with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service. This elimination was based on both misconduct and moral or professional dereliction (Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b) and derogatory information (Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2c) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 21 May 2011 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / BS Degree / NA c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-3 / 15A B2, Aviation, General / 8 years, 3 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR / Cadet (14 July 2006 to 20 May 2011) NA Appointed 2LT (21 May 2011) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: 10 February 2013 to 9 February 2014, Best Qualified 10 February 2014 to 9 February 2015, Highly Qualified 10 February 2015 to 1 June 2015, Highly Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Memorandum for Commander dated 16 February 2017, subject Executive Summary of Army Regulation 15-6 Investigation of the applicant from Major N.C.W. the investigation officer, indicated after investigating the allegations against the applicant of adultery and fraternization, it was in his belief, based on a preponderance of evidence the applicant did commit the offenses. The allegation fo fraternization between the applicant and SGT C. was unquestionable proven through evidence, witnesses, and through their own admission. The applicant adultery offense were particularly egregious because it occurred with an enlisted Soldier whom he knew to be married at the time. In so doing, he brought discredit upon the officer corps by calling into question, if not fracturing, the essential bonds of trust between officers and enlisted. As such his actions were in prejudice to the good order and discipline of the armed forces. During the interview with the applicant, it was noted that it became clear that the applicant made false official statements to the investigating officer as his statements regarding where SGT C slept at his apartment were significantly different than SGT C’s statements regarding the same. The Investigating officer recommended UCMJ action against the applicant for violation of Articles 90-Failure to Obey a Lawful Order and Article 134-Adultery. It was also recommended for a further investigation or UCMJ action against the applicant for violation of Article 107-False Official Statement. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand dated 10 March 2017, for engaging in an inappropriate and adulterous relationship with an enlisted Soldier, who was married to another enlisted Soldier, and for later lying to an investigating officer when questioned about the relationship. The action violated Army regulation and the customs of the service and had a negative impact on good order and discipline. An investigation determined that between on or about 1 October 2016 and 19 December 2016, the applicant engaged in a romantic relationship with a married enlisted Soldier. This relationship involved her spending the night over at the applicant’s apartment on multiple occasions. Aggravating this breach of trust was that for several weeks the spouse of his paramour, who was also an enlisted Soldier, was away at mandatory Army training. Additionally, during the investigation the applicant rendered a false official statement to the Investigating Officer when he wrote in his sworn statement that “I never had sex with Sergeant C.” i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): See Below (1) Applicant provided: Decision letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs indicating the applicant has been awarded 50 percent service-connected disability for unspecified anxiety disorder to include insomnia. (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 25 September 2017, indicates the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and appreciated the difference between right and wrong. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Oath of Office; several officer evaluation reports’ (OER’s); service school academic evaluation report; decision letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs; several letters of support/recommendation; and DD Form 214 for the period of service under review. 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), 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 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. (1) Paragraph 1-23 provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 1-23a, states an officer will normally receive an honorable characterization of service when the quality of the officer’s service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty, or the final revocation of a security clearance under DODI 5200.02 and AR 380–67 for reasons that do not involve acts of misconduct for an officer. (3) Paragraph 1-23b, states an officer will normally receive a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service when the officer’s military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A separation under general (under honorable conditions) normally appropriate when an officer: Submits an unqualified resignation; Separated based on misconduct; discharged for physical disability resulting from intentional misconduct or neglect; and, for final revocation of a security clearance. (4) Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty. (5) Paragraph 4-2b, prescribes for the elimination of an officer for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interests of national security. (6) Paragraph 4-24a, states an officer identified for elimination may, at any time during or prior to the final action in the elimination case elect one of the following options: (1) Submit a resignation in lieu of elimination; (2) request a discharge in lieu of elimination; and, Apply for retirement in lieu of elimination if otherwise eligible. 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 “BNC” as the appropriate code to assign commissioned officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b, unacceptable conduct; and 4-24a (1), resignation in lieu of elimination. 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 narrative reason change to disability. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. Evidence in the AMHRR indicates separation actions was initiated against the applicant for Conduct unbecoming an officer. specifically, receiving a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand for engaging in an inappropriate and adulterous relationship with an enlisted Soldier, who was married to another enlisted Soldier, and for lying to an Investigation Officer when questioned about the relationship; acts of personal misconduct. specifically, engaging in a romantic relationship with a married enlisted Soldier. This relationship involved the Soldier spending the night over at the applicant’s apartment on multiple occasions. Aggravating this breach of trust was that for several weeks the spouse of his paramour, who was also an enlisted Soldier, was away at mandatory Army training. additionally, during the investigation the applicant rendered a false official statement to the Investigating Officer when he wrote in his sworn statement that; “I never had sex with a Sergeant C.” The applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b and 4-24a (1), by reason of unacceptable conduct, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under these paragraphs is “Unacceptable Conduct,” and the separation code is “BNC.” 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 applicant seeks relief contending of having a discharge that is inequitable under current policies due to mental illness. The applicant contends of being diagnosed with anxiety (rated 50%) by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The applicant believes receiving that rating, one must demonstrate “some impairment in ability to function socially and at work with lack of reliability and productivity, due to symptoms such as trouble understanding, memory loss (forgetting to do things) poor judgment, mood disturbances, trouble with work and social relationships, and/or having one or more panic attacks weekly.” This mental illness clearly developed during time as an Active Army Officer, beginning as a USMA graduate and high performer in 2011 and gradually receiving sub-par evaluation before starting the Civil Affairs Qualification Course in 2015. In May 0f 2014, the applicant was personally affected by a helicopter crash that killed a Soldier in his Platoon and severely injured his Platoon Sergeant. Over the next three years, his performance gradually decreased due to the severe stress and emotional trauma of helping his Soldiers, their familied, and himself through that loss. Since his discharge in 2018, the applicant contends of not being able to hold a job, has not been able to maintain healthy relationships and has put himself in a serious financial hardship. These self- destructive behaviors appear to have characteristic of anxiety. The applicant is currently being treated by a Veterans Affairs Outpatient Hospital with medicine and check-ins. There is substantial doubt that the applicant character of discharge would have been the same if the Army would have caught this mental illness prior to his final health evaluation immediately before discharge. It is believed the applicant’s discharge status should therefore be upgraded to honorable. The applicant’s contentions were noted; evidence submitted by the applicant from the Department of Veterans Affairs indicates the applicant has been awarded 50 percent service connected. However, it should also be noted the applicant’s service record indicates the applicant committed several discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Commissioned Officer / Soldiers in the Army. The applicant’s incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. Also, the fact the Veterans Administration has granted the applicant service connection for medical conditions the applicant suffered while on active duty does not support a conclusion that these conditions rendered the applicant unfit for further service at the time of his discharge processing. The available medical evidence in the record is void of any indication that the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during discharge processing that would have warranted the separation processing through medical channels. 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 diagnosis: Post-service, applicant is 50% service connected for Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD). (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. Per applicant assertion alone, as documentation does not reflect an in-service diagnosis or symptoms suggestive of, applicant was anxious in-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 adultery is not a progression or sequela of anxiety and involves multiple, planned steps over time reflecting intact cognitive processes. (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 GAD outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – Conduct unbecoming of an Officer for engaging in an inappropriate and adulterous relationship with a married enlisted Soldier and lying to an Investigation Officer – for the aforementioned reason. b. Response to Contention(s): The applicant seeks relief contending of having a discharge that is inequitable under current policies due to an anxiety disorder for which the applicant was service connected for by the VA. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant’s GAD is not a mitigating factor as there is no natural sequelae between the BH condition and the nature of the misconduct. The Board, after considering the totality of evidence in the record, determined the discharge was proper and equitable. 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, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s GAD outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – Conduct unbecoming of an Officer for engaging in an inappropriate and adulterous relationship with a married enlisted Soldier and lying to an Investigation Officer. The Board also reviewed the totality of the applicant’s record and found insufficient evidence of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by the Command. 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 GD was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to HD. (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 AR20200010145 1