1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 29 May 2019 b. Date Received: 17 December 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 honorable. The applicant requests, through counsel, an upgrade to honorable, and a change to the separation program designator (SPD) code, reentry (RE) code to 1, and narrative reason to “Secretarial Authority,” and removal of derogatory information. The applicant through counsel, seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge is inequitable and has served its purpose. This appeal is based on three errors: (1) the underlying basis of the applicant’s separation was procedurally defective at the time of the discharge; (2) the adverse action, to include the administrative discharge, was unfair at the time; and (3) is inequitable now. There is a procedural defect in this case. In this case, there was a hasty command-initiated request for separation. The applicant was under investigation, but the command did not wait to find out the results of the investigation. During a command-initiated discharge request, consideration should be given to the Soldier’s potential for rehabilitation, and entire record should be reviewed before taking action. The commander must provide the member reasonable time to overcome deficiencies. In this case there was a rush to judgment that there was a problem that could not be fixed. The command should have evaluated the applicant as to whether the applicant had a long-term problem or whether there was an immediate fix. Although the command was authorized to administratively separate the applicant, the fundamental reason for the discharge was substantially deficient. There was no fully determined reason to initiate the elimination. The instruction also allows for the service-member to be able to “fix” the problem. The applicant was not allowed these opportunities. The service-member was never offered or provided with rehabilitation and the results of the investigation were never reviewed prior to the discharge. The command in this case did not have the proper authority to administratively separate the applicant. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 26 July 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 4-2B and 4-24 / BNC / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 22 March 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 17 April 2018 (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 4-2b for misconduct, moral, or professional dereliction, and AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-29(c), for derogatory information, due to the following reasons: The applicant engaged in an inappropriate and sexual relationship with a married woman. Additionally, the applicant made false official statements before an investigating officer. A General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 18 January 2018, was received relating to this misconduct, was filed permanently on 22 February 2018 in the applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). (3) Legal Consultation Date: 5 March 2019 (4) Board of Inquiry (BOI): On 30 March 2018, the applicant waived consideration of the case before a BOI, contingent upon receiving an honorable discharge certificate. (5) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 12 June 2018, the general officer show cause authority (GOSCA) recommended approval of the applicant’s request for resignation in lieu of elimination from service with an Honorable characterization of service. (6) DA Board of Review for Eliminations: 15 March 2019, the DA Review Board reviewed the applicants Resignation in Lieu of Elimination tendered by the applicant and accepted the resignation and directed discharge from the U.S. Army with an Honorable characterization of service. (7) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 15 March 2019 / Honorable 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 23 March 2016 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment: / Education: 27 / 2 years College c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: W01 / 003A0, Student / 6 years, 2 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 7 January 2013 - 22 March 2016 / HD (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (15 August - 24 September 2014) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ACM-CS, ASR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: NIF h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: GOMOR, dated 18 January 2018, reflects between on or about 1 May 2017 and on or about 12 September 2017, the applicant engaged in an intimate and sexual relationship with a woman known by the applicant to be married at the time. On or about 29 September 2017, the applicant made a false official statement to the investigating officer, to wit: the applicant had not had sex with Mrs. A__ M__, which statement was totally false, and was then known by the applicant to be false. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 15 September 2017, reflects the applicant was counseled for initiation of a commander’s investigation flag. DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)), dated 15 September 2017, reflects the applicant was flagged for commander’s investigation (LA), effective 15 September 2017. Memorandum, Findings and Recommendations for Army Regulation 15-6 Investigation of [Applicant] to determine adultery and conduct unbecoming or inappropriate behavior with Mrs. A__ M__, dated 2 October 2017, reflects the investigating officer found that: The applicant was aware that A__ M__ was married to J__ M__. An inappropriate relationship existed between the applicant and Mrs. A__ M__. Text message and photographic evidence supports the claim by Mr. J__ M__ that Mrs. A__ M__ (Mr. M__’s wife) is believed to have had a sexual relationship with the applicant. Mrs. A__ M__ filed for divorce from J__ M__ on 12 September 2017. Mr. J__ M__ was aware of the nature of the relationship between Mrs. A__ M__ (Mr. M__’s wife) and the applicant. Mr. M__ asked the applicant to stop the relationship with A__ M__ (Mr. M__’s wife). Warrant Officer One (WO1) Q__ was aware that an inappropriate relationship existed between the applicant and Mrs. M__ having seen nude photographs and inappropriate text messages on the applicant's cell phone. WO1 Q__ also stated the applicant confessed to being in love with Mrs. A__ M__. Divorce filings state that Mrs. A__ M__ is in an “open relationship” and is in “a relationship with a warrant officer in the military, [Applicant].” (AMHRR - Document 6, Motion for ER Pendente Lite Relief, dated 12 September 2017) Evidence supports that Mrs. A__ M__ lied about the nature of the relationship with the applicant. Mrs. M__ stated specifically they have never had sex, however Mrs. M__ confesses to having sex with the applicant on at least one occasion in a text message to Mr. J__ M__. The investigating officer recommended the applicant be issued an administrative action up to and including a letter of reprimand at the Commanding General level to be retained in the permanent military record. Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 9 August 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; and met medical retention requirements. The applicant had been screened for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) with negative results. The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: MSE as described in previous paragraph 4h. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; legal brief; partial elimination packet. 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 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 4-20a (previously 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 (3) 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. 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, through counsel, an upgrade to honorable, and a change to the SPD code, RE code to 1, and narrative reason to “Secretarial Authority,” and removal of derogatory information. The applicant’s AMHRR, the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant’s DD Form 214 reflects the applicant received an honorable discharge. The applicant through counsel contends, in effect, the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed to “Secretarial Authority.” The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, AR 600-8-24 with an honorable discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Unacceptable Conduct,” and the separation code is “BNC.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs 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 exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, SPD Codes. The regulation further stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant through counsel requests an RE code change to 1; however, RE codes are not applicable to officers being discharged from the the Army. Insomuch as RE codes are not assigned to officers being discharged, there is no basis to change the discharge. Further, if the applicant desires to rejoin the military, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army’s needs at the time and are required to process waivers. The applicant contends, in effect, the SPD code should be changed. The SPD codes are three- character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. The SPD Codes are controlled by OSD and then implemented in Army policy AR 635-5-1 to track types of separations. The SPD code specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, is “BNC.” The applicant through counsel contends, in effect, the discharge is inequitable and has served its purpose. The underlying basis of the applicant’s separation was procedurally defective at the time of the discharge. The applicant’s AMHRR reflects the applicant was investigated due to a claim that the applicant had a sexual relationship with a married women which was substantiated by text messages and photographic evidence and found procedurally correct by a legal officer. The applicant through counsel contends, in effect, the adverse action, to include the administrative discharge, was unfair at the time. AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2, reflects when one of the following or similar conditions exist, elimination action may be or will be initiated as indicated: substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interests of national security, and/or has derogatory information. The applicant’s AMHRR reflects the applicant received a GOMOR which is considered derogatory information per AR 600-37 (Unfavorable Information). AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b, reflects reasons for elimination that include but not all inclusive: intentional omission or misstatement of fact in official statements or records for the purpose of misrepresentation, conduct unbecoming an officer, and adverse information (GOMOR) filed in the official military personnel file. The applicant’s sexual relationship with a married women was determined to be conduct unbecoming an officer. In addition, the applicant made a false official statement to the investigating officer, to wit: the applicant had not had sex with Mrs. A__ M__, which statement was totally false, and was then known by the applicant to be false. The applicant through counsel contends, in effect, the case was a hasty command-initiated request for separation. The applicant was under investigation, but the command did not wait to find out the results of the investigation. The applicant’s AMHRR reflects the investigating officer’s findings and recommendations was completed on 2 October 2017, a legal review is dated 5 October (year covered by note), GOMOR dated 18 January 2018, the initial initiation of elimination dated 17 February 2018 (this is more than 4 months after the results of the investigation), the applicant’s initial resignation in lieu of elimination dated 30 March 2018, initial initiation of elimination was withdrawn on 17 April 2018 due to the initiation failed to specify a recommendation for the characterization of discharge, second initiation of elimination dated 17 April 2018, and the applicant’s second resignation in lieu of elimination dated 5 March 2019. The applicant through counsel contends, in effect, consideration should have been given to the applicant’s potential for rehabilitation and entire record should have been reviewed before taking action. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant through counsel contends, in effect, there was a rush to judgment that there was a problem that could not be fixed. The command should have evaluated the applicant as to whether the applicant had a long-term problem or whether there was an immediate fix. The applicant’s AMHRR reflects the applicant had a sexual relationship with a married woman. AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b, reflects an officer may be considered for elimination for conduct unbecoming an officer. The applicant through counsel contends, in effect, the fundamental reason for the discharge was substantially deficient and there was no fully determined reason to initiate the elimination. The applicant’s AMHRR contains a GOMOR, dated 18 January 2018, that reflects the applicant engaged in an inappropriate and sexual relationship with a married woman. Additionally, the applicant made false official statements before an investigating officer. AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4- 2b, reflects reasons for elimination that include but not all inclusive: intentional omission or misstatement of fact in official statements or records for the purpose of misrepresentation, conduct unbecoming an officer, and adverse information (GOMOR) filed in the official military personnel file. The investigating officer’s findings reflects that text messages and photographic evidence supports the claim the applicant had a sexual relationship with a married woman. The applicant through counsel contends, in effect, the results of the investigation were never reviewed prior to the discharge. The applicant’s AMHRR reflects the investigating officers’ findings and recommendations memorandum is dated 2 October 2017 and the legal review memorandum is dated 5 October (year covered by note). A legal review officer concluded that the investigating officer used proper procedures in conducting the investigation and the findings were supported by the evidence. It was recommended that the investigating officer’s findings be approved. The applicant through counsel contends, in effect, the command in this case did not have the proper authority to administratively separate the applicant. Memorandums in the applicant’s AMHRR reflects the GOSCA initiated a request to eliminate the applicant from the Army and recommended approval of the applicant’s request for resignation. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (DASA) accepted and directed the applicant’s resignation. AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-20, reflects the GOSCA will make a formal recommendation concerning the options submitted by the officer and the DASA may direct retention, discharge, or referral to a BOI. The applicant, through counsel, requests removal of this derogatory information from the applicant’s AMHRR. The applicant’s request does not fall within this board’s purview. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. The applicant’s AMHRR 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. 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: The applicant held in- service diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, and panic disorder. However, GAD and Panic Disorder were removed. The applicant is post-service connected for PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held in-service diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, and panic disorder. However, GAD and Panic Disorder were removed. The VA has not backdated the applicant's PTSD service connection to separation, rather three years later, suggesting the VA does not believe trauma symptoms existed 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 and false statements are not a progression or sequela of the diagnoses. Moreover, all documentation, to include extensive neuropsychological assessment immediately prior to discharge, indicates an absence of cognitive deficits or psychiatric impairment. (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 PTSD, Adjustment Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, and Panic Disorder outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – engaging in an inappropriate and sexual relationship with a married woman, and making false official statements before an investigating officer – for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant requests, through counsel, an upgrade to honorable, and a change to the separation program designator (SPD) code, reentry (RE) code to 1, and narrative reason to “Secretarial Authority,” and removal of derogatory. The Board considered this contention and concurred with the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, and determine that despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s PTSD diagnoses did not excuse or mitigate the Unacceptable Conduct - Adultery and false statements the basis for separation. Also, the applicant received the appropriate characterization and the SPD code for the discharge specified in AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2B. An upgrade to the reentry code is not valid because Officers are not given upon discharge a reentry code, honorable or otherwise. (2) The applicant through counsel contends, in effect, the discharge is inequitable and has served its purpose. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the characterization of service is already Honorable. With regard to the narrative reason for discharge and corresponding SPD code, the Board determined that by committing the serious offenses of Adultery and making false statements, the quality of the applicant’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military. Thus, the applicant was properly discharged. (3) The applicant through counsel contends, in effect, the adverse action, to include the administrative discharge, was unfair at the time. The Board considered this contention and the applicant’s assertion of inequity; however, the Board determined that there is no evidence of inequity in the official records, and the applicant did not provide supporting documentation to overcome the presumption of regularity in the discharge process. AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2, reflects when one of the following or similar conditions exist, elimination action may be or will be initiated as indicated: substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interests of national security, and/or has derogatory information. The applicant’s AMHRR reflects the applicant received a GOMOR which is considered derogatory information per AR 600-37 (Unfavorable Information). AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b, reflects reasons for elimination that include but not all inclusive: intentional omission or misstatement of fact in official statements or records for the purpose of misrepresentation, conduct unbecoming an officer, and adverse information (GOMOR) filed in the official military personnel file. Ultimately, the Board determined that the assertion alone did not outweigh the offenses of adultery and making false statements. (4) The applicant through counsel contends, in effect, the case was a hasty command- initiated request for separation. The Board considered this contention and the applicant’s assertion of inequity, however the Board determined that there is no evidence of said inequity in official records, and the applicant did not provide supporting documentation to overcome the presumption of regularity in the discharge process. The applicant was provided full administrative due process because the applicant’s AMHRR reflects the applicant had a sexual relationship with a married woman and in accordance with AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b, reflects an officer may be considered for elimination for conduct unbecoming of an Officer. Also, the board did not find evidence of the command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. (5) The applicant through counsel contends, in effect, consideration should have been given to the applicant’s potential for rehabilitation and entire record should have been reviewed before taking action. The Board considered this contention during proceedings but determined there was insufficient evidence of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by the Command, and that this uncorroborated assertion did not outweigh the applicant’s unacceptable conduct outlined in paragraphs 9a (3-4) and 9b (1). (6) The applicant through counsel contends, in effect, the results of the investigation were never reviewed prior to the discharge. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately found this contention non-persuasive during deliberations due to the applicant’s AMHRR reflecting the investigating officers’ findings and recommendations memorandum, dated 2 October 2017, and the legal review memorandum, dated 5 October (year covered by note). A legal review officer concluded that the investigating officer used proper procedures in conducting the investigation and the findings were supported by the evidence. The Board determined the applicant’s assertion does not outweigh the nature and severity of the offenses. (7) The applicant through counsel contends, in effect, the command in this case did not have the proper authority to administratively separate the applicant. Memorandums in the applicant’s AMHRR reflects the GOSCA initiated a request to eliminate the applicant from the Army and recommended approval of the applicant’s request for resignation. The board considered this contention and after a review of the applicant AMHRR, the Board found that the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (DASA) accepted and directed the applicant’s resignation. AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-20, reflects the GOSCA will make a formal recommendation concerning the options submitted by the officer and the DASA may direct retention, discharge, or referral to a BOI. After finding insufficient evidence of any arbitrary or capricious action being taken by the applicant’s Command, the Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable. (8) The applicant, through counsel, requests removal of this derogatory information from the applicant’s AMHRR. The board took this contention into consideration and determine that the applicant’s request does not fall within this board’s purview. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. 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 characterization of service due to it already being Honorable. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD, Adjustment Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, and Panic Disorder, or applicant’s unsupported contentions of impropriety and inequity, outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – engaging in an inappropriate and sexual relationship with a married woman, and making false official statements before an investigating officer. As such, the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the applicant was an Army Officer, there is no reentry code supplied upon discharge. ? 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 AR20200010222 1