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 honorable. The applicant requests an upgrade honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, serving over seven years of honorable service. The applicant contends the discharge was unjust as there was a regulation change in November 2014, and the applicant was unaware it made it illegal for a noncommissioned officer to have intimate relationships with enlisted Soldiers. The applicant served over six years of service with not one incident until the fraternization situation and was given a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The applicant is unable to utilize the Post-9/11 GI Bill because of the characterization of the discharge. The applicant contends being unjustly punished and chaptered for wanting to be with their spouse. The applicant would like to make a better life for spouse and children. The applicant contends not being a perfect Soldier, but military records, awards, and achievements do not warrant anything other than an honorable discharge. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 7 July 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board’s decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a / JKN / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 19 November 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 31 August 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 26 June 2015, the applicant forged the signature of a superior commissioned officer. On or about 23 March 2015, the applicant willfully disobeyed a superior commissioned officer. On or about 22 March 2015, the applicant failed to obey a lawful general regulation. On or about 22 March 2015, the applicant made a false official statement to a noncommissioned officer. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 8 September 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 14 October 2015, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of rights. On 8 September 2015, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 27 September 2015, the applicant’s conditional waiver was denied. On 29 October 2015, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 2 November 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 January 2011 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / some college / 110 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 19D20, Calvary Scout / 7 years, 5 months, 1 day d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 19 June 2008 – 17 January 2011 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Afghanistan (21 July 2010 – 16 July 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-2CS, JSCM, ARCOM, AAM-5, NATOMDL, ASUA, AGCM-2, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-2 g. Performance Ratings: 1 June 2012 – 31 August 2013 / Marginal 1 September 201331 August 2014 / Fully Capable 1 September 2014 – 15 April 2015 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 6 May 2015, for wrongfully disobeying a lawful order; regulation and make a false statement (between 22 and 23 May 2015). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $1,225 pay per month for two months; and extra duty for 28 days. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 7 May 2015, 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 command was advised to consider the influence of these conditions. The applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood. Service member does not meet criteria for a substance use disorder at this time. SM referred for evaluation pending Chapter 14-12. SI/HI currently denied. No observed behavioral abnormalities. No evidence of thought disorder or psychotic symptoms. This individual is mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, and has the mental capacity to understand and participate in administrative/board proceedings. SM is psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by Command. Report of Medical History, dated 13 May 2015, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Currently in treatment for behavioral health. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; DD Form 214. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities’ last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember’s date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) 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. (4) 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. (5) Paragraph 14-12a addresses minor disciplinary infractions, defined as a pattern of misconduct, consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions. 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 “JKN” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (minor infractions). f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the discharge was unjust as there was a regulation change in November 2014, and the applicant was unaware it made it illegal for a noncommissioned officer to have intimate relationships with enlisted Soldiers. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 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 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 good service, including a combat tour. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant’s AMHRR reflects a Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 7 May 2015, which shows the applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. ? 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 and depression. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the applicant is service connected for PTSD, with prior active duty diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood . (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that applicant is service connected for PTSD with evidence of noteworthy depression, primarily diagnosed as adjustment disorder, while on AD. Neither PTSD nor depression impairs one’s ability to differentiate right from wrong and adhere to the right, and therefore would provide no medical mitigation for the factors described in the basis of separation to include forgery of a signature, failure to obey lawful regulation, disobeying a superior commissioned officer in the context described in the record, and making a false official statement. There is no nexus between either depression or PTSD and the episodes of misconduct leading to his separation. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD and Depression outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – forgery of a signature of a superior commissioned officer, disobeying orders and regulations, and false official statement – for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the discharge was unjust as there was a regulation change in November 2014, and the applicant was unaware it made it illegal for a noncommissioned officer to have intimate relationships with enlisted Soldiers. The Board considered this contention non-persuasive during its deliberations given the applicant was separated for the medically unmitigated misconduct of disobeying orders, forgery of a signature, and false official statement, and as a result of deliberations, the Board found insufficient evidence of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by the command. After reviewing the totality of the record, the Board determined the discharge is proper and equitable. (2) 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. (3) 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. (4) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered this contention and determined that due to the applicant already having an Honorable characterization with Misconduct (Minor Infractions) as the narrative reason for discharge, that no further relief is warranted. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the characterization of service due to it already being Honorable. (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 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 AR20210001901 1