1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 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 events which led to the discharge were due to documented mental stability. While serving over four years in various capacities as an Army officer, the applicant was a person of distinct moral character who was and still is grounded in all Army values. The applicant was a selfless and dedicated officer, honorably serving three tours of duty ensuring every mission was accomplished above expectation, receiving numerous awards and accolades. The applicant accepts sole responsibility for their poor judgment, realizing they were in a mental state desperately needing companionship, which caused the applicant to react inappropriately. The single act of unstable judgment will be with the applicant for the rest of their life. The applicant is continuing to honorably serve the country and take care of Soldiers leaving the military by working for the Department of Veterans Affairs. The applicant is also receiving treatment to assist with the mental depression, associated with diagnosed PTSD and has the confidence to be satisfied with or without the companionship of a partner. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 31 October 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 / JNC / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 11 June 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 31January 2012 (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(b) and 4-2(c): misconduct and/or professional dereliction, and derogatory information in the applicant’s permanent file, due to the following reasons: Series of substantiated derogatory activity resulting in a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, 23 November 2011, which was filed in the Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The applicant was reprimanded for misconduct, and moral or professional dereliction by having an inappropriate sexual relationship with a junior enlisted Soldier which the applicant directly supervised as the Officer in Charge (OIC). Furthermore, on subsequent occasions, the applicant continued to pursue the Soldier, and assigned the Soldier extra tasks outside of normal duties, which created the perception of unfairness and retaliation. Conduct unbecoming an officer as indicated by the above referenced GOMOR. (3) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (4) Board of Inquiry (BOI): NA (5) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 15 March 2012, the GOSCA reviewed the separation packet and additional matters and recommended the applicant be discharged. / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (6) DA Board of Review for Eliminations: On 10 May 2012, the Army Board of Review for Eliminations considered the GOSCA’s request to involuntary separate the applicant for unacceptable conduct in accordance with AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b and derogatory information, Chapter 4-2c. (7) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 10 May 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 1 July 2007 / NIF b. Age at Appointment: / Education: 30 / Bachelor Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-3 / 70B, Health Services Administration / 8 years, 11 months, 4 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 22 May 1998 – 16 September 1998 / NA RA, 17 September 1998 – 18 August 2002 / HD USAR, 19 September 2002 – 21 May 2006 /NA (Break in Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, Korea, SWA / Iraq (29 May 2010 – 30 May 2010); Kosovo (8 June 1999 – 19 November 1999); NIF (22 May 1998 – 16 September 1998) f. Awards and Decorations: MSM, ARCOM-4, AAM-2, VUA, AGCM, NDSM-2, GWOTEM, AFRM-M, NATOMDL-2, EFMB g. Performance Ratings: 13 December 2007 – 31 December 2009 / Best Qualified 1 January 2010 – 12 August 2010 / Best Qualified 24 November 2010 – 14 July 2011 / Best Qualified 15 July 2011 – 26 November 2011 / Do Not Promote h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers, 26 October 2011, reflects the investigating officer found: The allegations by PFC K. had an intimate relationship with the applicant, the preponderance of evidence suggests the relationship did occur. The investigating officer recommended the investigation be forward to the first general officer in the chain of command for consideration the applicant be given a GOMOR to be filed in the OMPF and training on inappropriate relationships be a topic for one of the required biweekly PME2 sessions. General Officer Letter of Reprimand, 23 November 2011, reflects the applicant was reprimanded for having an inappropriate sexual relationship with an enlisted Soldier whom the applicant directly supervised. On 27 October 2011, a 15-6 investigation was completed, and the investigating officer determined the applicant engaged in sexual activity with the junior enlisted Soldier at the BOQ. Furthermore, after the relationship ended, the applicant assigned the Soldier additional tasks outside of the normal duties, which created a perception of unfairness and retaliation. Finally, when confronted by the investigating officer regarding the sexual relationship with the junior list the Soldier, the applicant chose to lie and denied the relationship existed. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Progress Notes, 22 March 2005, reflect the applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I: Adjustment disorder – mixed anxiety and depression and Axis IV: Current Psychosocial Stressors: limited support; currently in transition. Health Record, 3 November 2011, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I: Adjustment Disorder with depressed Mood and Axis IV: Occupational/family difficulties. Health Record, 14 May 2012, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with depressed mood. Initial Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Disability Benefits Questionnaire, 22 October 2013, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I: F43.1 PTSD, Chronic and major depression, recurrent, moderate and Axis IV: Psychosocial and Environment Problems. Department of Veterans Affairs, 7 March 2014, reflects the applicant is receiving service- connected disability compensation with a combined evaluation of 80 percent; however, the letter does not state the nature of the disability. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214; VA Letter; two VA Forms 0750; National Performance Plan; partial separation packet; third-party letter; ARBA Letter; medical records. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is continuing to honorably serve the country and take care of Soldiers leaving the military by working for the Department of Veterans Affairs. 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 “JNC” 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 an upgrade to honorable. The applicant contends good service, including three combat tours and receiving numerous awards and accolades. The applicant contends the event which led to the elimination from the Army was an isolated incident. Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 1-23, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends the mental state caused the applicant to act inappropriately. The applicant provided Progress Notes, 22 March 2005, which reflect the applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I: Adjustment disorder – mixed anxiety and depression and Axis IV: Current Psychosocial Stressors: limited support; currently in transition. Health Record, 3 November 2011, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I: Adjustment Disorder with depressed Mood and Axis IV: Occupational/family difficulties. Health Record, 14 May 2012, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with depressed mood. Initial Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Disability Benefits Questionnaire, 22 October 2013, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I: F43.1 PTSD, Chronic and major depression, recurrent, moderate and Axis IV: Psychosocial and Environment Problems. Department of Veterans Affairs, 7 March 2014, reflects the applicant is receiving service-connected disability compensation with a combined evaluation of 80 percent; however, the letter does not state the nature of the disability. The AMHRR does not contain a mental status evaluation. The third-party statement provided with the application speaks highly of the applicant. It recognizes the applicant’s good conduct while serving in the Army. The applicant is continuing to honorably serve the country and take care of Soldiers leaving the military by working for the Department of Veterans Affairs. 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. 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: Major Depressive Disorder, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the applicant is 70 percent SC for MDD. (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’s misconduct characterized by engaging in an inappropriate sexual relationship with a junior enlisted Soldier under her command is not a natural sequela of either MDD or PTSD and therefore does not mitigate the misconduct. (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 Major Depressive Disorder and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder outweighed the applicant’s medically unmitigated inappropriate sexual relationship offense. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the mental state caused the applicant to act inappropriately. The Board liberally considered this contention but determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Major Depressive Disorder and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder outweighed the applicant’s medically unmitigated inappropriate sexual relationship offense. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is not warranted. (2) The applicant contends good service, including two combat tours and receiving numerous awards and accolades. The Board considered the applicant’s 8 years of service, including overseas and combat service, but determined that the applicant’s service record does not outweigh the applicant’s inappropriate sexual relationship with a junior enlisted Soldier. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is not warranted. (3) The applicant contends the event which led to the elimination from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention but determined that the discharge was proper and equitable in light of the severity of the applicant’s offense. (4) The applicant is continuing to honorably serve the country and take care of Soldiers leaving the military by working for the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Board considered the applicant’s post-service accomplishments but determined that they do not outweigh the applicant’s offense of an inappropriate sexual relationship with a junior enlisted Soldier. 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 Major Depressive Disorder and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder did not outweigh the medically unmitigated offense of having an inappropriate sexual relationship with a junior enlisted Soldier. The Board also considered the applicant's contentions regarding good service and the misconduct being an isolated incident and found that the 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, and the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. ? 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No Change b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No Change d. 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 AR20210000854 1