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 under other than honorable conditions. The applicant through counsel, requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, growing up in a military family and enlisted in the Army during the senior year in high school. The applicant deployed to Iraq in 2003, where the applicant received a Purple Heart for injuries sustained in combat service and resulted in PTSD. The applicant exhibited symptoms while enlisted and was diagnosed upon separation from the military. The crime the applicant was convicted of is consistent with the effects of PTSD. The PTSD should have been considered in the separation decision, up to and including separating the applicant with a medically based reason for separation and an honorable characterization of service. The applicant does not deny committing a serious offense against another person on one night; however, the years of positive influence on others before and since the offense are equally undeniable. The applicant will emerge from incarceration at a crossroads and will have spent more than a decade paying with the freedom for the offenses, yet also benefiting and growing from the opportunity to heal oneself and others. The applicant will face enormous difficulty reentering civilian society, both as a combat veteran and a convicted felon. A discharge upgrade will equip the applicant to meet those challenges head-on, relying on the military experiences and abilities as assets and tools to help the applicant overcome the obstacles which the applicant will encounter. If the applicant instead retains the current under other than honorable conditions characterization, the military experiences which should be the greatest sources of strength will instead become another barrier the applicant must overcome. The Board’s acknowledgment of the influence of the applicant’ combat service and resultant PTSD on the actions will set the conditions for the applicant to grow from this experience, continue treatment, and contribute to the community. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 6 June 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 (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 7 December 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 August 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 26 August 2006 and 27 August 2006, the applicant committed an assault in the second degree / domestic violence while armed with a deadly weapon and rape in the second degree / domestic violence, as titled under the Revised Code of Washington. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 19 August 2007 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 19 August 2007, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 21 September 2007, the applicant’s conditional waiver was denied. On 15 November 2007, the administrative separation board convened. The applicant was absent due to civilian confinement; however, the applicant heard real time board proceedings via conference phone. The applicant’s counsel was present during the board proceedings. The board determined the applicant committed a serious offense within the meaning of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, Section II, para 14-12c. The board recommended the applicant’s discharge with characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. On 30 November 2007, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 30 November 2007 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 19 May 2006 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / some college / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 11B30, Infantryman / 7 years, 1 month, 12 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 5 August 1999 – 2 November 1999 / HD IADT, 3 November 1999 – 10 March 2000 / HD ARNG, 11 March 2000 – 15 August 2000 / HD RA, 16 August 2000 – 11 December 2002 / HD RA, 12 December 2002 – 18 May 2006 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (7 November 2003 – 22 October 2004) f. Awards and Decorations: PH, ARCOM, AAM-2, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, OSR, CIB g. Performance Ratings: 1 December 2005 – 31 October 2006 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Personnel Action Form, reflects the applicant’s duty status changed from “Present for Duty (PDY),” to “Confined by Civilian Authorities (CCA)” effective 17 September 2006. Superior Court of Washington Document, dated 19 September 2006, which reflects the applicant was charged with: Count I: Assault in the Second Degree / Domestic Violence – Class B Felony, on or between 26 and 27 August 2006, did intentionally assault E. F. L, and thereby recklessly inflicted substantial bodily harm. Count II: Assault in the Second Degree / Domestic Violence while Armed with a Deadly Weapon – Class B Felony, on or between 26 and 27 August 2006, did intentionally assault E. F. L. with a deadly weapon, to wit: a combat knife. It is further specially alleged during the commission of such crime the applicant was armed with a deadly weapon. Count III: Rape in the Second Degree / Domestic Violence – Class A Felony, on or between 26 and 27 August 2006, did engage in sexual intercourse by forcible compulsion with E. F. L. The applicant was found Guilty on Counts II and III and Not Guilty on Count I. The applicant was sentenced to 137 months confinement. Memorandum for Record, dated 17 April 2007, reflects on 18 December 2006, the applicant was released on bail; however, was placed on House Arrest. The Thurston County Sherriff’s Office summonsed the applicant to take a drug test on 19 December 2006. On 25 December 2006, the test results returned positive for alcohol and the applicant was ordered to turn oneself into the Sheriff’s Office or a warrant for the applicant’s arrest would be issued. The applicant promptly turned oneself in without further incident. Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers, dated 15 November 2007, reflects an Administrative Separation Board convened, to determine whether the applicant should be discharged by reason of misconduct, IAW AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c. Administrative Separation Board Findings Worksheet, dated 15 November 2007, reflects the board found the applicant committed a serious offense within the meaning of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, Section II, para 14-12c. The board recommended the applicant’s discharge with characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 1 year, 2 months, 20 days (CCA, 17 September 2006 – 7 December 2007) j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Health Record, dated 18 April 2006, reflects problems: Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Emotional Features. It was noted: Depression: extreme by beck’s depression scale, post traumatic symptoms, anger symptoms. Weight loss. Continue counseling with behavior health and Insomnia. Department of Corrections Mental Health Appraisal, dated 18 March 2008, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I: PTSD and ETOH Dependency and Axis II: Antisocial Personality Disorder. Department of Corrections Primary Encounter Report, dated 10 February 2011, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I: PTSD and Polysubstance Dep – Controlled Envir. VA Rating Decision, dated 26 February 2018, reflects the applicant was granted an increase from 50 percent to 100 percent for service-connected disability for post-traumatic stress disorder. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; legal brief; listed enclosures; Northwest Justice Project letter with listed enclosures. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: While in prison, the applicant worked with other veteran inmates to form a Veterans Pod within the prison and was considered instrumental in its establishment. The applicant also worked in the woodshop to make toys for kids, as well as hand-carved boxes for Gold Star mothers and items to be sold to raise money for Veteran Service Organizations. The applicant also worked with other veterans in the unit to submit paperwork and applications for benefits to the VA. 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) Paragraph 3-7c states Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (5) 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. (6) 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. (7) 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, through the applicant’s attorney, contends that a discharge upgrade is warranted warrants an upgrade based on Equity in light of Secretary of Defense guidance, US Code, and the Kennedy settlement guidelines. The applicant further contends that the facts of the Kennedy case are similar to the applicant’s (both men experienced severe PTSD resulting in actions that were discordant with both Soldiers’ reputations as upstanding, trustworthy Soldiers and gentlemen). The applicant, through the applicant’s attorney, contends that a discharge upgrade should be granted on the grounds of justice based on the applicant’s personal development and circumstances. The applicant, through the applicant’s attorney, contents a discharge upgrade is warranted based on propriety due to multiple material errors in PTSD diagnosis and management by military healthcare providers. The applicant further contends that an upgrade is warranted because the applicant did not receive a medical evaluation during separation as required under current and historical regulations and 10 U.S.C. § 1177 resulting in the applicant’s commander failing to make a recommendation for medical disposition. The applicant’s AMHRR reflects that a State of Washington Department of Corrections memorandum dated 22 June 2007 denying the Army’s request for the applicant to complete a full medical and mental health evaluation at Fort Lewis but offered the Army staff to conduct any examination on site. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour and was awarded the Purple Heart. The applicant contends suffering from PTSD. The applicant provided Health Record, dated 18 April 2006, which reflects problems: Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Emotional Features. It was noted: Depression: extreme by beck’s depression scale, post traumatic symptoms, anger symptoms. Weight loss. Continue counseling with behavior health and Insomnia. Department of Corrections Mental Health Appraisal, dated 18 March 2008, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I: PTSD and ETOH Dependency and Axis II: Antisocial Personality Disorder. Department of Corrections Primary Encounter Report, dated 10 February 2011, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I: PTSD and Polysubstance Dep – Controlled Envir. VA Rating Decision, dated 26 February 2018, reflects the applicant was granted an increase from 50 percent to 100 percent for service-connected disability for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The AMHRR does not contain a mental status evaluation (MSE). The applicant contends the discharge should have been for medical reasons. Army Regulation 635-200 stipulates commanders will not separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. Eligibility for veteran’s benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant and recognize the applicant’s good conduct while serving and after leaving the Army. While in prison, the applicant worked with other veteran inmates to form a Veterans Pod within the prison and was considered instrumental in its establishment. The applicant also worked in the woodshop to make toys for kids, as well as hand-carved boxes for Gold Star mothers and items to be sold to raise money for Veteran Service Organizations. The applicant also worked with other veterans in the unit to submit paperwork and applications for benefits to the VA. 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: PTSD, Adjustment Disorder, Depression, and reported history of mild TBI during service. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found applicant PTSD, Adjustment Disorder, Depression, and reported history of mild TBI existed during 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 and OBH do not mitigate the applicant’s offenses of assault and rape in the second degree as there is no nexus between the applicant’s PTSD, TBI, and OBH and these offenses. The weight of the evidence supports that the applicant’s actions were more likely than not attributed to the applicant’s post-service Antisocial Personality Disorder diagnosis, for which the applicant’s medical records reflect in-service indicators of this diagnosis, as the applicant’s actions were thought out, deliberate, and conscious steps taken over time with manipulation and intimidation tactics (e.g. events surrounding the origins of the applicant’s relationship with the victim, the applicant’s statements/actions during the misconduct, and the applicant’s post- service VA documentation reflecting characterological presentation). There is no indication in the records that the assaults were impulsive, spontaneous, or fleeting which would be more indicative of a trauma reaction associated with PTSD. Rather, the applicant’s records support that the applicant had intact understanding of events and ability to problem solve to include showing constraint when needed. The applicant asserts that the Board should give more weight to the applicant’s provider’s email dated 6 September 2017 that states the applicant’s actions were attributed to “PTSD and nothing else.” However, the Board Medical Advisor determined that this provider’s opine was not a comprehensive medical opine as it did not address the applicant’s personality disorder diagnosis or include an objective psychological assessment in support of the provider’s assertions. Further, the provider indicated the applicant’s actions were related to misinterpreting and overreacting to conflict, aggression, and resistance. However, the applicant’s victim did not engage in any of these behaviors leading up to the applicant’s assault and rape of the victim. Finally, while the applicant’s provider states that the provider has experience treating PTSD, the provider acknowledged that the provider was not formally trained as specialist in PTSD. Therefore, the Board Medical Advisor determined that none of the applicant’s behavioral health conditions mitigate the applicant’s rape and assault offenses as the evidence reflects that the applicant was a controlled individual who was not overreacting or engaging in impulsive, immediate, and temporary misbehavior associated with PTSD at the time of the applicant’s misconduct. (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 applicant’s PTSD, mTBI, and OBH did not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated assault and rape offenses. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant, through the applicant’s attorney, contends that a discharge upgrade is warranted warrants an upgrade based on Equity in light of Secretary of Defense guidance, US Code, and the Kennedy settlement guidelines. The applicant further contends that the facts of the Kennedy case are similar to the applicant’s (both men experienced severe PTSD resulting in actions that were discordant with both Soldiers’ reputations as upstanding, trustworthy Soldiers and gentlemen). While the applicant contends that the applicant’s case is similar to the Kennedy case, the Board is not bound by prior decisions in its review of subsequent case because no two cases present the same issues of equity. The Board considered this contention and determined that, based on the severity of the applicant’s offense of assault and rape, that discharge upgrade is not warranted. (2) The applicant, through the applicant’s attorney, contends that a discharge upgrade should be granted on the grounds of justice based on the applicant’s personal development and circumstances. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s confinement achievements, medical condition, medical opine, 11 years of incarceration, and registration as a sex offender do not outweigh the medically unmitigated misconduct of assault and rape; therefore, a discharge upgrade is not warranted. (3) The applicant, through the applicant’s attorney, contents a discharge upgrade is warranted based on propriety due to multiple material errors in PTSD diagnosis and management by military healthcare providers. The applicant further contends that an upgrade is warranted because the applicant did not receive a medical evaluation during separation as required under current and historical regulations and 10 U.S.C. § 1177 resulting in the applicant’s commander failing to make a recommendation for medical disposition. The Board considered the applicant’s contention and determined that the weight of the evidence does not support that there were errors in the applicant’s behavioral health management. The applicant received behavioral health treatments between March 2006 and 7 August 2006 at which time the applicant requested to discontinue treatment based on resolved behavioral health symptoms. Further, the applicant official records reflect that the applicant was ineligible to be considered for medical disposition because the applicant was convicted by civilian authorities for assault and rape. AR 635-40, paragraph 4-1 states that referral to or completion of disability evaluation system processing is not authorized unless the Soldier is cleared of the civilian charges. The applicant was not cleared of civilian charges. Rather, the applicant was convicted by civilian authorities on 16 February 2007 disqualifying the applicant from disability processing resulting in no requirement for the applicant’s Commander’s recommendation for medical disposition. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is not warranted. (4) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour and being awarded the Purple Heart. The Board considered the applicant’s seven (7) years of service, including a combat tour in Iraq and the numerous awards received by the applicant, but determined that these factors did not outweigh the applicant’s rape and assault offenses. (5) The applicant contends suffering from PTSD. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant’s PTSD, mTBI, and OBH does not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated offenses of assault and rape. The Board also considered the totality of the applicant’s record and determined that a discharge is not warranted based on the severity of the applicant’s offenses. (6) The applicant contends the discharge should have been for medical reasons. 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. (7) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. The Board considered this contention and determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare or VA loans, do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. (8) While in prison, the applicant worked with other veteran inmates to form a Veterans Pod within the prison and was considered instrumental in its establishment. The applicant also worked in the woodshop to make toys for kids, as well as hand-carved boxes for Gold Star mothers and items to be sold to raise money for Veteran Service Organizations. The applicant also worked with other veterans in the unit to submit paperwork and applications for benefits to the VA. The Board considered this contention and determined that volunteer service while in prison does not outweigh the applicant’s assault and rape offenses due to the seriousness of these offenses. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. The applicant has exhausted the applicant’s appeal options available with ADRB. However, the applicant may still apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. 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 PTSD, mTBI, and OBH did not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated assault and rape offenses. The Board also considered the applicant's contention regarding assisting veteran inmates, making toys for children and Gold Star mothers and found that the totality of the applicant's record does not warrant a discharge upgrade. The Board also considered the applicant’s contention regarding the applicant lack of consideration for medical disposition and found that the applicant was ineligible IAW AR 635-40. 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 Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s conduct fell below that level of satisfactory service warranting a General discharge or 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 AR20210001895 1