1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. Counsel for the applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge is inequitable because it is based on minor isolated incidents with no other major adverse actions. Counsel does not want these past mistakes to continue limiting the good work the applicant can do today. Counsel requests the narrative reason for separation be changed to reflect a medical discharge. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 20 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 / JNC / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 7 February 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 14 November 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 4-2b for misconduct, moral, or professional dereliction, due to the following reasons: A series of substantiated derogatory activity resulting in two General Officer Memorandum of Reprimands, dated 13 March 2008 and 11 April 2002, and two referred Officer Evaluation Reports for the periods of 1 April 2007 – 31 March 2008 and 24 August 2011 – 19 April 2012, which were filed in the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File. Conduct unbecoming an officer, as indicated by the above-referenced items. (3) Legal Consultation Date: 14 January 2013 (4) Board of Inquiry (BOI): On 30 April 2013, a Board of Inquiry recommended the applicant be involuntarily eliminated from the United States Army based on misconduct and moral or professional dereliction, with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service. (5) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 30 April 2013, the GOSCA recommended disapproval of the applicant’s request for retention and recommended the applicant be involuntarily eliminated from service. / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (6) DA Board of Review for Eliminations: On 19 December 2013, 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. (7) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 23 January 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 19 December 2003 / NIF b. Age at Appointment: / Education: 25 / Bachelors Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-3 / 67A5P, Health Services / 70K, Health Services Material / 14 years, 8 months, 17 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 20 May 1999 – 2 August 1999 / NA IADT, 3 August 1999 – 24 February 2000 / HD USAR, 24 February 2000 – 18 December 2003 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska, SWA / Iraq (11 January 2005 – 10 January 2006); Afghanistan (25 February 2009 – 24 February 2010;14 September 2011 – 13 July 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-3CS, ICM-2CS, BSM, MSM, ARCOM-3, MUC, NDSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-4, NATOMDL-2, CMB, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 22 May 2004 – 31 March 2006 / Best Qualified 1 April 2006 – 31 March 2007 / Best Qualified 1 April 2007 – 31 March 2008 / Do Not Promote 1 April 2008 – 23 August 2010 / Best Qualified 24 August 2010 – 19 April 2012 / Do Not Promote 20 April 2012 – 1 October 2012 / Best Qualified 1 October 2012 – 2 February 2013 / Fully Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Two Developmental Counseling Forms, for making a false official statement and for being accused of sexual harassment. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 13 March 2008, reflects the applicant provided inaccurate information to their chain of command relating to duties involving the Warrior Refractive Eye Program. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 11 April 2012, reflects the applicant was reprimanded for sexual harassment, retaliation, and for creating a hostile work environment while they were in command. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: Physical Profile, dated 7 November 2012, reflects the applicant had the following medical conditions: PTSD; and Major Depression, Moderate, Single Episode. Mental Health C & P Examination Consult, dated 5 December 2012, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood and chronic PTSD. Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings, dated 8 January 2013, reflect the following diagnosis: PTSD and Major Depression, Moderate, Single Episode. Informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings, dated 30 September 2013, found the applicant physically unfit due to PTSD and major depressive disorder and recommended a rating of 50 percent and the applicant’s disposition be placed on TDRL and with reexamination during June 2014. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Legal Brief with all listed enclosures A through DD; DD Form 214; copies of military personnel records; four third-party letters; cover letter for employment; applicant’s résumé; applicant’s biography. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is pursuing an MBA with Webster University. 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 the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed to a medical discharge. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, AR 600-8-24 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Unacceptable Conduct,” and the separation code is “JNC.” 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, Separation Program Designator (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’s request for a medical discharge 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 293 regarding this matter. A DD Form 293 may also be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. Counsel contends the discharge is inequitable because it is based on minor isolated incidents. Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 1-23, in pertinent part, stipulates the characterization of service will be predicated on the officer’s behavior and performance while a member of the Army. Characterization normally will be based on a pattern of behavior and duty performance rather than an isolated incident. However, there are circumstances in which conduct reflected by a single incident may provide the basis of characterization of service. Counsel contends the applicant is pursuing an MBA with Webster University. 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. The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant’s good military service. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Adjustment Disorder, PTSD, TBI, Major Depression. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant was diagnosed in service with an Adjustment Disorder, PTSD, Major Depression, and a TBI. The VA has also service connected the PTSD and 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 the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, PTSD, Major Depression, and TBI do not mitigate the applicant’s offenses of providing false information and sexual harassment because there is no natural sequela between these conditions and the applicant’s offenses or interfere with the ability to distinguish between right and wrong and act in accordance with the right. (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 the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, PTSD, TBI, Major Depression does not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – providing false information and sexual harassment. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) Counsel for the applicant contends the discharge should be changed to a medical discharge. The Board determined that the applicant’s requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of the ADRB. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using a DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. (2) Counsel for the applicant contends the discharge is inequitable because it is based on minor isolated incidents. The Board considered this contention and found it to be non- persuasive during deliberations as the Board found that the applicant’s misconduct was neither minor or isolated incidents. Rather, the applicant’s official records reflects the applicant made repeated comments of a sexual nature and retaliated against the Soldier for making a complaint. Further, the applicant provided false information to a superior officer. Therefore, the Board found the applicant’s discharge proper and equitable.. (3) Counsel for the applicant contends the applicant is pursuing an MBA with Webster University. The Board considered the applicant’s post-service conduct and determined that it does not outweigh the nature and severity of the applicant’s basis for separation. 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 applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, PTSD, TBI, Major Depression did not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – providing false information and sexual harassment. The Board further considered the applicant’s contentions of inequity and impropriety and determined there was insufficient evidence of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by the Command to 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. (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 AR20210000862 1