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 and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, being falsely accused of attempted sexual contact. The findings of the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) investigation led the leadership to administratively punish the applicant as recommended by the brigade trial counsel. The applicant was not afforded the seven duty days to submit additional materials in the applicant's defense in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 paragraph 2-2c(5). The applicant was only given six days because on the sixth day the applicant's enlistment contract was over. The command was determined to administratively punish the applicant without affording the applicant the opportunity to rebut the trial counsel's recommendation. The character of service is improper because the command violated the regulation. The sixth day was on the applicant's expiration term of service (ETS) date and if the command provided seven days, the command would have had to extend the applicant in the Army. The applicant believes the command was unable to extend the applicant based on an unsubstantiated CID investigation recommendation. The document is provided, showing the applicant's defense attorney attempt to inform the command of the applicant's rights to seven duty days to respond. If the applicant was afforded seven duty days to rebut the separation, the applicant would have submitted a character letter from a Staff Sergeant R., Sexual Harassment / Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP) noncommissioned officer. The letter was favorable, and it may have changed the status of the discharge. According to Captain (CPT) L. S., trial counsel, CPT L. S. did not recommend prosecution because the accuser lacked credibility; there were no witnesses able to corroborate; and there were some significant inconsistencies (the timeline), between the account of the accuser and those of other witnesses. The CID determined a panel would likely acquit rather than hand down a conviction. The character of service separation is improper because the investigation findings were not sufficient to support a prosecution. The applicant was punished for being accused. The applicant requests consideration of the character statements. The accusations have tarnished the applicant's name and credibility and do not reflect the applicant's dedication to the Army and fellow Soldiers. The applicant served 3 years and 18 weeks as an 11B, Infantryman. The applicant is a good Soldier and a good person. The applicant was privileged to deploy to Afghanistan and earn a campaign medal. The applicant further describes the events which led to the discharge. The applicant requests the narrative reason be changed to "completion of required active service." The applicant is a disabled veteran with a family to support and requests the applicant's post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) be considered. The applicant requests an upgrade to obtain a career and join active service if needed. The applicant further details the contentions in two self-authored statements submitted with the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 15 August 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the absence of any misconduct not related to the basis of separation, the applicant's post-service accomplishments, and the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, outweighing the applicant's basis for separation. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason/SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 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 (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 13 February 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 4 February 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant committed the act of abusive sexual contact and attempted rape. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 5 February 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 13 February 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 4 October 2010 / 3 years, 18 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 29 / GED / 95 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 3 years, 4 months, 10 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (30 September 2012 - 23 April 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, NATOMDL, CIB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Agents Investigation Report, dated 12 July 2013, reflects the applicant was under investigation for Attempted Rape and Abusive Sexual Contact. The applicant was read the rights and invoked the rights. The investigation contains Sworn Statements from the victim and witnesses regarding the incident. The following Sworn Statements reflect: Sworn Statement, dated 12 July 2013, from the victim, K. N., described the circumstances surrounding the sexual assault. The victim indicated the event took place in March 2013, before Easter. The applicant's AMHRR reflects the applicant did not redeploy from Afghanistan until after 23 April 2013. Sworn Statement, dated 16 August 2013, from Staff Sergeant (SSG) A. S. reflects K. N. briefly resided with K. N. and spouse SSG T. N., a Soldier in SSG A. S.'s platoon. The victim, K. N., approached SSG A. S. and described the events surrounding the sexual assault. SSG A. S. indicated the platoon sergeant and SSG A. S. approached the applicant about the incident and gave the applicant a no contact order. The applicant denied the accusation and offered to take a polygraph test. SSG A. S. explained an incident when K. N. made false accusations against SSG A. S. before the abusive sexual contact investigation. Sworn Statement, dated 22 August 2013, from Staff Sergeant T. N., the victim's spouse, reflect K. N. described the circumstances surrounding the assault to SSG T. N. SSG T. N. described the illnesses K. N. had been diagnosed with and some of the symptoms T. N. had witnessed regarding the illnesses. The applicant provided Sworn Statement, dated 2 September 2013, from the applicant, describing the interactions with K. N., the victim, including interactions on the date of the sexual assault. Report of Medical History, dated 30 October 2013, reflects the applicant reported severe headaches; bad memory loss; trouble sleeping; receiving counseling on traumatic brain injury; and excessive worry. The examining medical physician noted in the comments section: All the above complaints have been addressed and documented in Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) and are current. Memorandum, subject: Probable Cause Opine / No Prosecution Recommendation - Investigation # 0223-2013-CID093, [Applicant], dated 15 November 2013, reflects the trial counsel found probable cause existed to believe the applicant committed the offense of abusive sexual contact and violation of Article 120 of the Uniform Code Military Justice (UCMJ). The trial counsel recommended no prosecution in this case because the Government was unlikely to prevail at trial based on the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" because of medical concerns, which may make the victim unable to testify at trial and which may severely undermine the victim' credibility; no witnesses able to corroborate the events of the actual assault; and significant inconsistencies between the account of the victim and those of a number of other witnesses. The recommendation not to prosecute no way limits the ability of the command to prosecute the applicant for the offense or pursue other appropriate non-judicial punishment or administrative measures. The brigade commander approved the trial counsel's recommendations. Orders 360-0039, dated 26 December 2013, revoked by Orders 044-0010, dated 13 February 2014, reflect the applicant was to be reassigned to the U.S. Army Transition Point and released from active duty (REFRAD), and assigned to the U. S. Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement) on 13 February 2014, with a terminal date of Reserve obligation of 9 June 2018. Four Developmental Counseling Forms, dated 27 January 2014, for initiation of Chapter 14-12, Commission of a Serious Offense; initiation of suspension of favorable personnel actions (FLAG); and removal of Flag which was initiated because of commander's investigation. Memorandum, subject: Matters Regarding Separation of [Applicant] Under AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, Commission of a Serious Offense, dated 12 February 2014, reflects the defense counsel indicated the applicant reserved the right to submit additional matters within seven duty days from 4 February 2014, the date of notification, citing AR 635-200, paragraph 2- 2c(5). Orders 044-0009, dated 13 February 2014, reflect the applicant was to be reassigned to the U.S. Army Transition Point and discharged on 13 February 2014 from the Regular Army. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Harlingen Veterans Affairs Clinic Health Summaries and Progress Notes, dated from 11 February 2021 to 9 September 2021, reflecting the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD; traumatic brain injury (personal history); and received a diagnostic impression of major depression disorder, recurrent moderate; and trauma stressor related disorder. The applicant reported military sexual trauma which occurred while in basic training by a fellow trainee. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) letter, dated 14 January 2022, reflecting the VA granted the applicant 60 percent service-connected disability. The medical conditions which were involved in the rating were not disclosed. (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 30 January 2014, reflects 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 PTSD with negative results. The applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood (per medical record). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149, with continuation sheet; DD Form 214; Worksheet (draft) DD Form 214; two self-authored statements; Red Cross Message; memorandum; Request and Authority for Leave and supporting documents; separation packet; separation orders (REFRAD); CID Report of Investigation; military awards; military training record; Enlisted Record Brief; 12 third party statements; two VA letters; and Army Review Boards Agency letter. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant provided a third-party statement reflecting the applicant is heavily involved in the community and welcomed strangers in the applicant's home, helping many families back on their feet. 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 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 investigation regarding abusive sexual contact was insufficient, rendering the discharge improper. The applicant referred to the trial counsel's memorandum to support the contention and provided third-party statements of Soldiers attesting to the applicant's innocence and/or character. The applicant's AMHRR contains the trial counsel's memorandum explaining the reasons the trial counsel recommended the command not prosecute the applicant. However, the trial counsel opined probable cause existed to believe the applicant committed the offense of sexual assault and recommended alternative disposition. The applicant contends the applicant's PTSD was not considered at discharge. The applicant provided medical documents indicating a diagnosis of PTSD; TBI; and received a diagnostic impression of major depression disorder, recurrent moderate; and trauma stressor related disorder. The VA granted the applicant 60 percent service-connected disability that included PTSD and TBI. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 30 January 2014, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder, with anxiety and depressed mood. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends the discharge was improper because the applicant was not provided seven days to rebut the separation in accordance with Army Regulation, paragraph 2-2c(5) and seven days would have placed the applicant beyond the ETS date. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 2-2c(5) states failure to respond, including failure to submit matters within 7 duty days will constitute a waiver of the rights in which the right to submit statements in his/her own behalf. The applicant's AMHRR reflects the applicant was afforded the opportunity to submit matters and submitted matters in rebuttal to the separation proceedings. Orders reflect the applicant was scheduled to be REFRAD on 13 February 2014, with a terminal date of Reserve obligation of 9 June 2018. The applicant's AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 601-201, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of "3." There is no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or the RE code. An RE Code of "3" indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army's needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. The applicant contends being heavily involved in the community and welcoming strangers in the applicant's home, helping many families back on their feet. 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 and recognize the applicant's good military service or good conduct after leaving the Army. 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: PTSD, TBI, Major Depression, Persistent Depressive Disorder, Trauma and Stressor Related Disorder, Nightmare Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, and MST. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the applicant's PTSD (Major Depression, Persistent Depressive Disorder, Trauma and Stressor Related Disorder, Nightmare Disorder, and Adjustment Disorder subsumed by the applicant's PTSD),TBI, and MST existed during the applicant's 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 the applicant's PTSD, TBI, or MST do not mitigate the applicant's improper sexual contact offense as there is no nexus between PTSD and improper sexual contact and PTSD does not impair one's ability to differentiate right from wrong and adhere to the right. Further, there is no evidence that the applicant's TBI impaired the applicant's behavior, cognition, or judgment to such a degree as to impair ability the applicant ability to differentiate right from wrong. Finally, there is no nexus between an asserted history of MST and the applicant's offense of improper sexual conduct and attempted rape. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, to include the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant's PTSD, TBI or MST outweighed the applicant's medically unmitigated basis for applicant's separation - abusive sexual contact and attempted rape. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant was properly separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200. 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. The Board determined there are insufficient factors that warrant deviation from the regulation. However, based on the absence of any misconduct not related to the basis of separation, the applicant's post-service accomplishments, and the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, outweighing the applicant's basis for separation, the Board determined that the current characterization of service is too harsh and that an upgrade to Honorable was warranted. (2) The applicant contends the investigation regarding abusive sexual conduct was insufficient, rendering the discharge improper. The Board considered this contention and found insufficient evidence in the AMHRR, and in the evidence provided by the applicant, of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by Command such that rebuts the presumption of government regularity. However, the Board determined that the absence of any misconduct not related to the basis of separation, the applicant's post-service accomplishments, and the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, outweighed the applicant's basis for separation. Thus, an upgrade to Honorable was warranted. (3) The applicant contends the discharge was improper because the applicant was not provided seven days to rebut the separation in accordance with Army Regulation, paragraph 2-2c(5) and seven days would have placed the applicant beyond the ETS date. The Board considered this contention and found insufficient evidence in the AMHRR, and in the evidence provided by the applicant, of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by Command such that rebuts the presumption of government regularity. However, the Board determined that the absence of any misconduct not related to the basis of separation, the applicant's post-service accomplishments, and the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, outweighed the applicant's basis for separation. Thus, an upgrade to Honorable was warranted. (4) The applicant contends the applicant's PTSD was not considered at discharge. The Board considered this contention and the totality of the record and determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant's PTSD, TBI or MST outweighed the applicant's medically unmitigated basis for applicant's separation. However, the Board determined that the absence of any misconduct not related to the basis of separation, the applicant's post service accomplishments, and the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, outweighed the applicant's basis for separation. Thus, an upgrade to Honorable was warranted. (5) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the totality of the applicant's record, and accordingly determined that based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, along with the absence of any other misconduct in the applicant's service record and the applicant's post service accomplishments, an upgrade to Honorable was warranted. (6) The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. The Board considered this contention and voted to maintain the RE-code at RE-3, which is a waiverable code. An RE Code of "3" indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army's needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes, if appropriate. (7) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board considered this contention, but it does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. (8) The applicant contends being heavily involved in the community and welcoming strangers in the applicant's home, helping many families back on their feet. The Board considered the applicant's post-service conduct and included it, along with the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat, as part of the applicant's upgrade in the characterization of service to Honorable. c. The Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the absence of any misconduct not related to the basis of separation, the applicant's post-service accomplishments, and the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, outweighing the applicant's basis for separation. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief. The applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address further 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 to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable based on the absence of any misconduct not related to the basis of separation, the applicant's post service accomplishments, and the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, outweighing the applicant's basis for separation. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The Board voted to maintain the RE-3 because the RE-3 will allow the applicant to obtain a required waiver before being allowed to reenlist, and the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable 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 AR20210001733 1