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 change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant's record paints a picture of an officer who failed miserably at maintaining the standards for Officership. For eleven months the applicant battled significant pain, debilitating depression, and overwhelming crippling depression. The applicant's work had been stripped away, was quarantined to a cubicle with no work and ostracized by the command and any meaningful medical care. There is a reason the Commanding General recommended a General discharge and the applicant agreed to accept this characterization. The Staff Judge Advocate, direct supervisors pushed this agenda, and the applicant accepted it, yet ARBA denied the command's recommendation and concurrence with the recommendation. The applicant does not see the equity in a situation where the local command recognized the medical disabilities as playing a significant role in the alleged misconduct and ARBA, a distant agency viewing the situation on paper and apparently without regard for medical considerations disagreeing with the assessment. The applicant believes equity demands consideration be given to the medical disabilities impact on the decision making during those eleven months and consideration they are not worthy of a general (under honorable conditions) discharge when viewed considering the near perfect ten years of military service beginning in 2003. Receiving an other than honorable discharge for what the entire command determined to be only worthy of a general discharge is hard to contemplate in light of equity. The VA has rated the applicant as 100 percent disabled due to the medical reasons and the applicant is requesting the Board to please understand how hard it is to be in pain for years and have a dependency never treated while the command excludes one. The applicant is unemployed, unemployable, not entitled to any benefit with full knowledge the Army PEB recommendation for medical retirement at 60 percent was completely overlooked so the Army could discharge the applicant unfavorably and save money. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 10 October 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Depressive Neurosis (Dysthymia), and Panic Disorder outweighed the applicant's offenses of driving under the influence, failure to report, and conduct unbecoming an officer. The Board found that the applicant's medically unmitigated offenses of disobeying orders from superior officers was directly related to the applicant's medically mitigated misconduct and thus did not rise to a level negating the meritorious service required for an Honorable discharge. 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 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: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b and 4-24a (1) / BNC / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 5 February 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 3 December 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2b(5), 4-2b(8) and 4-2b(11) for driving while impaired, failing to go to the appointed place of duty, disobeying direct orders from superior officers, reckless driving, wrongful use of prescription drugs; and conduct unbecoming an officer. The action was based on the following specific reasons for elimination: Misconduct, moral and professional dereliction resulting in a General Officer memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), 4 April 2012; On multiple occasions, the applicant disobeyed the direct orders of the superior officers; On divers occasions wrongfully used Hydrocodone and Carisoprol; and, Drove recklessly on 1 November 2012. (3) Legal Consultation Date: On 4 December 2012, the applicant waived legal counsel. (4) Board of Inquiry (BOI): NA (5) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 6 December 2012, the GOSCA recommended approval of the applicant's request for resignation in lieu of elimination. / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (6) DA Ad Hoc Review Board: The AD Hoc review board considered the applicant's request for resignation in lieu of elimination in accordance with AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4. (7) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 23 January 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) The DASA considered the Informal Physical Evaluation Board Proceedings (convened on 3 October 2012) and accepted the applicant's Resignation in Lieu of Elimination 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 3 August 2009 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment: / Education: 28 / Bachelor Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-3 / 27A, Judge Advocate General / 10 years (The DD Form 214 does not account for all prior inactive service between 11 June 2005 and 2 August 2009) d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 5 February 2003 - 10 June 2005 / HD IADT, 2 April 2003 - 25 July 2003 / HD (Concurrent Service) USARCG, 11 June 2005 - 2 August 2009 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: 25 July 2009 - 25 November 2012 / Best Qualified 26 November 2011 - 30 June 2012 / Fully Qualified 1 July 2012 - 31 January 2013 / Do Not Promote h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report Number 00579- 2012-MPC014, 30 January 2012, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: Driving While Impaired (Article #111, UCMJ) (On Post); Traffic Accident (POV/POV) Resulting in Damage to Private Property (TRC 545.062) (On Post); and Fail to Obey General Order (Prescribed Medication) (Article #92, UCMJ) (On Post). General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, 4 April 2012, reflects the applicant was reprimanded for recklessly operating a motor vehicle while driving under the influence of a narcotic substance and subsequently causing a motor vehicle accident in violation of Article 111, into the back of a stationary vehicle at a stop light on Fort Bliss. When Military Police came to secure and evaluate the scene, they suspected the applicant of being under the influence of an unknown narcotic because of the erratic and aggressive behavior, as well as the inability to complete any portion of the Standardized Field Sobriety Test. Upon a search of the applicant and vehicle, Military Police discovered two bottles of recently prescribed prescription medication which were almost empty. When the applicant was transferred to William Beaumont Army Medical Center for evaluation, the applicant continued to be aggressive and uncooperative towards the Military Police and even attempted to hide possession of another bottle containing crushed prescription medication. Informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings, 5 October 2012, reflects the board found the Soldier is physically unfit and recommended a rating of 60 percent and the Soldier's disposition be placed on TDRL and with a reexamination during July 2013. Disability 1: Generalized anxiety disorder and dysthymic disorder (MEB Dx1,2) and Disability 2: Degenerative arthritis of the lumbar spine without unfitting radiculopathy (MEB Dx 3) Several Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: WBAMC - Psychiatric Medical Evaluation Board (or Addendum), 27 April 2012, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with Axis I: 304 00 Opioid Dependence with Physiological Dependence, Axis I 305 1 Nicotine Dependence, Axis I: V62 2 Occupational Problem, Axis II: 301 9 Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (avoidant, depressive, dependent and schizoid). Health Record, Chronological Record of Medical Care, 29 May 2012, reflects Soldier was first seen by military BH in May 2011 at which time reported concern regarding pain medications and possible addiction to the same. Soldier was diagnosed with insomnia, and Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety. Soldier was subsequently diagnosed with Panic Disorder and prescribed medication. Following referral for MEB, Soldier was evaluated and diagnosed with Depressive Disorder NOS, Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety, Pain Disorder associated with both psychological factors and a medical condition, Opioid Dependence and Alcohol Dependence. Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings, reflect the following diagnosis: Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Dysthymic Disorder. VA Decision Letter, 4 April 2014, reflects the applicant was granted 70 percent service- connected disability for generalized anxiety disorder and dysthymic disorder with opioid dependence, in remission. (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, 2 May 2012, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. 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 and mTBI with negative results. The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. The applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I: Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Dysthymia, Suboxone and Ambien Dependent, Opiate withdrawal; Axis II: Narcissistic Personality; and, Axis III: Chronic Pain. Amanecer Psychological Services, P.C. letter, 14 September 2012, reflects the applicant was evaluated and was diagnosed with Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Dysthymic Disorder and prescribed medication. Informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings, 5 October 2012, reflects the board found the Soldier was physically unfit and recommended a rating of 60 percent and the Soldier's disposition be placed on TDRL and with a reexamination during July 2013. Disability 1: Generalized anxiety disorder and dysthymic disorder (MEB Dx1,2) and Disability 2: Degenerative arthritis of the lumbar spine without unfitting radiculopathy (MEB Dx 3. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; VA Physical Disability documents; Army Physical Review Board Findings; U.S. District court dismal of DUI charge; 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 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. (1) Paragraph 1-23, provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 1-23a, states an officer will normally receive an honorable characterization of service when the quality of the officer's service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty, or the final revocation of a security clearance under DODI 5200.02 and AR 380-67 for reasons that do not involve acts of misconduct for an officer. (3) Paragraph 1-23b, states an officer will normally receive a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service when the officer's military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A separation under general (under honorable conditions) normally appropriate when an officer: Submits an unqualified resignation; separated based on misconduct; discharged for physical disability resulting from intentional misconduct or neglect; and, for final revocation of a security clearance. (4) Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty. (5) Paragraph 4-2b, prescribes for the elimination of an officer for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interests of national security. (6) Paragraph 4-20a (previously 4-24a), states an officer identified for elimination may, at any time during or prior to the final action in the elimination case elect one of the following options: (1) Submit a resignation in lieu of elimination; (2) request a discharge in lieu of elimination; and (3) Apply for retirement in lieu of elimination if otherwise eligible. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "BNC" as the appropriate code to assign commissioned officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b, Unacceptable Conduct; and 4-24a (1), Resignation in Lieu of Elimination. 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 4, paragraph 4-2b, and 4-24a(1), AR 600-8-24 with a honorable conditions discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Unacceptable Conduct," and the separation code is "BNC." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be 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 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 suffering from significant pain, debilitating depression, and overwhelming crippling depression. The applicant provided a copy of WBAMC - Psychiatric Medical Evaluation Board (or Addendum), 27 April 2012, which reflects the applicant was diagnosed with Axis I: 304 00 Opioid Dependence with Physiological Dependence, Axis I 305 1 Nicotine Dependence, Axis I: V62 2 Occupational Problem, Axis II: 301 9 Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (avoidant, depressive, dependent and schizoid). Health Record, Chronological Record of Medical Care, 29 May 2012, reflects Soldier was first seen by military BH in May 2011 at which time reported concern regarding pain medications and possible addiction to the same. Soldier was diagnosed with insomnia, and Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety. Soldier was subsequently diagnosed with Panic Disorder and prescribed medication. Following referral for MEB, Soldier was evaluated and diagnosed with Depressive Disorder NOS, Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety, Pain Disorder associated with both psychological factors and a medical condition, Opioid Dependence and Alcohol Dependence. The applicant's AMHRR contains Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), 2 May 2012, which reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. 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 and mTBI with negative results. The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. The applicant was diagnosed with: Axis I: Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Dysthymia, Suboxone and Ambien Dependent, Opiate withdrawal; Axis II: Narcissistic Personality; and, Axis III: Chronic Pain. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends there is a reason why the Commanding General recommended a general discharge and the applicant agreed to accept the characterization. The Staff Judge advocate, direct supervisors pushed the agenda, yet ARBA denied the command's recommendation and the applicant's concurrence with the recommendation. The applicant does not see the equity in the situation where the local command recognizes the medical disability as playing a significant role in the alleged misconduct, and ARBA, a distant agency viewing the situation on paper apparently without regard for medical consideration disagreeing with the assessment. The AMHRR reflects the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army prior to deciding to eliminate the applicant reviewed the request for resignation in lieu of elimination, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board Proceedings, and the GOSCA recommendation. The applicant's resignation was accepted, and the applicant was discharged with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). Governing regulations states the separation authority is not bound by the recommendations of the initiating or intermediate commander and has complete discretion to direct any discharge and characterization of service authorized by the applicable provisions of the regulation. The applicant's AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the VA has rated the applicant 100 percent disabled due to the medical reasons. The applicant provided VA Decision Letter, 4 April 2014, which reflects the applicant was granted 70 percent service-connected disability for Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Dysthymic Disorder with Opioid Dependence, in remission. 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 not being entitled to any benefit with full knowledge the Army PEB recommendation for medical retirement at 60 percent was completely overlooked so the Army could discharge the applicant unfavorably and save money. The AMHRR contains Informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings, 5 October 2012, which reflects the board found the Soldier was physically unfit and recommended a rating of 60 percent and the Soldier's disposition be placed on TDRL and with a reexamination during July 2013. Disability 1: Generalized anxiety disorder and dysthymic disorder (MEB Dx1,2) and Disability 2: Degenerative arthritis of the lumbar spine without unfitting radiculopathy (MEB Dx 3). Eligibility for veteran's benefits 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. 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: Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Depressive Neurosis (Dysthymia), and Panic Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the SC diagnosis was first diagnosed during service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant's behavioral health conditions partially mitigate the applicant's misconduct. As there is an association between GAD and comorbid substance abuse, there is a nexus between the applicant's misconduct characterized by wrongful use of prescription drugs such that the misconduct is mitigate by the disorder. Misconduct characterized by driving under the influence, FTR, and conduct unbecoming an Officer are summarily mitigated as it is more likely than not that these behaviors are related to the applicant drug use and drug-seeking behavior. Regarding the misconduct of disobeying direct orders from superior officers, this misconduct is not mitigated by GAD or the other potentially mitigating diagnoses of Depressive Disorder or Panic Disorder, as the misconduct is not natural sequela of either, as neither impairs one's ability to differentiate between right and wrong and adhere to the right. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the applicant's Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Depressive Neurosis (Dysthymia), and Panic Disorder outweighed the applicant's offenses of driving under the influence, failure to report, and conduct unbecoming an officer. The Board found that the applicant's medically unmitigated offenses of disobeying orders from superior officers was directly related to the applicant's medically mitigated misconduct and thus did not rise to a level negating the meritorious service required for an Honorable discharge. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends suffering from significant pain, debilitating depression, and overwhelming crippling depression. The Board liberally considered the applicant's contention, including the applicant's asserted depression, and determined that the applicant's Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Depressive Neurosis (Dysthymia), and Panic Disorder outweighed the applicant's offenses of driving under the influence, failure to report, and conduct unbecoming an officer. The Board found that the applicant's medically unmitigated offenses of disobeying orders from superior officers was directly related to the applicant's medically mitigated misconduct and thus did not rise to a level negating the meritorious service required for an Honorable discharge. (2) The applicant contends the discharge should have been for medical reasons. The Board considered this contention but determined that the applicant's Unacceptable Conduct discharge was proper and equitable in view of applicant's actions, notwithstanding the medical mitigation. (3) The applicant contends there is a reason why the Commanding General recommended a general discharge and the applicant agreed to accept the characterization. The Staff Judge advocate, direct supervisors pushed the agenda, yet ARBA denied the command's recommendation and the applicant's concurrence with the recommendation. The applicant does not see the equity in the situation where the local command recognizes the medical disability as playing a significant role in the alleged misconduct, and ARBA, a distant agency viewing the situation on paper apparently without regard for medical consideration disagreeing with the assessment. The Board considered this contention during proceedings but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the decision to upgrade the applicant's characterization of service based on medical mitigation. (4) The applicant contends the VA has rated the applicant 100 percent disabled due to the medical reasons. The Board considered this contention but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the decision to upgrade the applicant's characterization of service based on medical mitigation. (5) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board considered this contention but does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. (6) The applicant contends not being entitled to any benefit with full knowledge the Army PEB recommendation for medical retirement at 60 percent was completely overlooked so the Army could discharge the applicant unfavorably and save money. The Board determined that the applicant's request for a Physical Evaluation Board 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 293 regarding this matter. A DD Form 293 may be obtained online at https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/forms/dd/dd0293.pdf or from a Veterans' Service Organization. c. The Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Depressive Neurosis (Dysthymia), and Panic Disorder outweighed the applicant's offenses of driving under the influence, failure to report, and conduct unbecoming an officer. The Board found that the applicant's medically unmitigated offenses of disobeying orders from superior officers was directly related to the applicant's medically mitigated misconduct and thus did not rise to a level negating the meritorious service required for an Honorable discharge. 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 were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Depressive Neurosis (Dysthymia), and Panic Disorder outweighed the applicant's offenses of driving under the influence, failure to report, and conduct unbecoming an officer. The Board found that the applicant's medically unmitigated offenses of disobeying orders from superior officers was directly related to the applicant's medically mitigated misconduct and thus did not rise to a level negating the meritorious service required for an Honorable discharge. 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. 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 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 AR20210001899 1