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 discharge was unfair, and the applicant was ridiculed for seeking therapy for depression. With no disciplinary actions in 31 months of service, the service record speaks for itself. The applicant believes being entitled to an actual relief, in consideration of the time spent in the military and the resulting mental health issues. Despite acknowledging the service-connected disability from the Department of Veterans Affairs, the prior ADRB rejected the connection as insufficient to overcome the presumption based on a lack of evidence. Nobody ever questioned why the applicant falsified any paperwork with only a few months left in the service and with two months of accrued leave. In April 2004, more than six months before the alleged incident, the applicant was actively seeking treatment for mental health issues. The behavior was obviously unusual, and in the nearly three years of service, the incident was an isolated event. A mental health condition can mitigate the alleged misconduct under the liberal consideration context. The applicant further details the contentions in an allied self-authored statement provided with the latter application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 5 September 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board’s decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 7 March 2005 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 2 February 2005 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 7 October 2004, with intent to deceive, the applicant signed an official document, to wit: A Security Clearance Application, which document was false in that the applicant answered, “No” to questions pertaining to financial delinquencies, and was then known by the applicant to be so false. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 8 February 2005 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 11 February 2005 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 26 July 2002 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / some college / 94 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 13D10, Field Artillery Tactical Data System Operator / 2 years, 7 months, 12 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, KDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: A Developmental Counseling Form for falsifying documents and being indebted. Memorandum, 19 August 2004, subject: Intent to Deny Security Clearance, reflects security concerns from an investigation of personal history led to a preliminary decision to deny the applicant’s security clearance. The applicant was provided a Statement of Reasons (SOR), which indicated the security concerns were for answering “no” to questions pertaining to financial delinquencies on the Security Clearance Application, 7 October 2002, and a list of delinquent accounts provided by a credit bureau report on 9 October 2002. On 31 August 2004, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Veterans Administration Disability rating decisions, 14 June 2005 and 29 March 2007, reflect the applicant’s 50 percent disability for mood disorder (claimed as anxiety) was increased to 70 percent, effective 11 December 2006. Behavioral Health records, in July 2004 to August 2005, indicates the applicant sought help with behavioral health for diagnosis of depression; adjustment disorder – depressed mood; occupational problems; depressive disorder NOS; situational depression; and mood disorder, including clinical disorder; bipolar disorder; and personality disorders/traits deferred. (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), 21 October 2004, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The MSE indicated an “Axis I” diagnosis of an “Adjustment Disorder NOS.” 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; VA Rating Decisions; and DD Form 214. Additional Evidence: DD Form 149; self-authored statement; and medical records. 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 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (5) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. (6) Paragraph 14-12c prescribes a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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 “JKQ” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1 defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Misconduct (Serious Offense),” and the separation code is “JKQ.” 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 regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends the discharge was unfair, and the applicant was ridiculed for seeking therapy for depression. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention of being ridiculed. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-5, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends good service, with no disciplinary action in 31 months of service. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends having sought therapy for depression and being entitled to an actual relief, considering the time spent in the military and the resulting mental health issues. The Veterans Administration has granted the applicant service connection for medical conditions the applicant suffered while on active duty. The applicant’s AMHRR contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of an adjustment disorder. The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 21 March 2004, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant identifies issues with a previous ADRB decision. The contends the Board acknowledged the service-connected disability from The Department of Veterans Affairs but then rejected the connection as insufficient to overcome the presumption based on the lack of evidence. The applicant will receive a ‘de novo’ review as part of the Kennedy v. McCarthy Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, certified on April 26, 2021, wherein the board will apply the Department of Defense guidance regarding liberal consideration of possible mitigating factors, such as PTSD, TBI, and other related mental health conditions. 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: mood disorder (subsuming depression, depressive disorder - not otherwise specified (NOS), and adjustment disorder diagnoses on active duty, bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found applicant has multiple diagnoses associated with depression on active duty and is service connected for mood disorder. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that applicant is service- connected for mood disorder and has numerous diagnoses associated with depression per available records during the period of active service. The advisor appreciates subsequent diagnoses of bipolar disorder to include with psychotic features, as well as schizoaffective disorder; however, the available records do not contain evidence of any mania or psychotic- spectrum functioning or diagnoses during the period of active duty which may be applicable to potential mitigation. The presence of depression per the applicant’s diagnosis while on active duty does not impair the ability to differentiate right from wrong and adhere to the right; there is no nexus between depression and signing a false attestation on a security clearance application with intent to deceive. (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 mood disorder subsuming depression, depressive disorder - not otherwise specified (NOS), adjustment disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizoaffective disorder outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation for misconduct for a false official statement on a security clearance for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends having sought therapy for depression and being entitled to an actual relief, considering the time spent in the military and the resulting mental health issues. The Board liberally considered this contention but determined that the applicant’s mental health issues did not outweigh the applicant’s offense of false official statement on a security clearance. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is not warranted. (2) The applicant contends the discharge was unfair, and the applicant was ridiculed for seeking therapy for depression. The Board liberally considered this contention but determined that there was insufficient evidence in the applicant’s AMHRR or applicant-provided evidence to support the contention. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is not warranted. (3) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention but determined that the applicant received the appropriate narrative reason for the discharge specified by AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c. (4) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention but determined that the applicant’s false official statement on a security clearance is a single incident for which Army Regulation 635- 200, paragraph 3-5 permits separation and characterization of service. (5) The applicant contends good service, with no disciplinary action in 31 months of service. The Board considered the applicant’s 31 months of service and the numerous awards received by the applicant but determined that these factors did not outweigh the applicant signing a false attestation on a security clearance application with intent to deceive. (6) The applicant identifies issues with a previous ADRB decision. The applicant contends the Board acknowledged the service-connected disability from The Department of Veterans Affairs but then rejected the connection as insufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of the commanders who made the original decision. The Board liberally considered all of the applicant’s medical conditions but found those potentially mitigating behavioral health conditions did not outweigh the applicant’s offense of signing a false attestation on a security clearance application with intent to deceive. c. 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 mood disorder subsuming depression, depressive disorder - not otherwise specified (NOS), adjustment disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizoaffective disorder did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of separation for misconduct for a false official statement on a security clearance. The Board also considered the applicant’s contentions regarding discrimination for receiving mental health treatment, the applicant’s good service, and the event taking place in isolation and determined that the totality of the applicant’s record does not warrant discharge upgrade. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. Therefore, the applicant’s General discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable discharge. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. 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: NA 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 AR20210001582 1