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 under other than honorable. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable conditions and an RE-code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, only receiving one Article 15 in ten years of service, with no civil convictions. The commander found the applicant guilty of all charges, despite these same charges being before the civil courts in Nigeria and Queens NY and these being the applicant’s first offense. After completing all the punishments imposed by the Article 15, the applicant’s company commander refused to lift the flag initiated in May 2015, the applicant even wrote the leadership requesting the flag be lifted for enlistment eligibility in the Reserve or National Guard. The board found the applicant not guilty of the “forgery charge” but guilty of the other charges. If the applicant was not guilty of forging the divorce decree, then the applicant entered the other marriage in good faith and should not to have been found guilty of bigamy. The applicant’s military counsel thought the same thing too, but the board nevertheless, recommended separation with an under other than honorable characterization of service which was approved by the installation commander. The applicant’s command team refused to authorize ETS leave, and the applicant was unable to clear the installation. The applicant had about 70 days of leave and was still on the installation by 30 October. Additionally, the command team signed the DA Forms 31 of other Soldiers with the same period and the applicant was denied; against the advice of legal counsel who said the applicant should not be treated any differently from any other Soldier clearing the installation on ETS. Based on the same Article 15 incident, the applicant went from SGT to PVT, leaving the Army with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service, including losing accrued leave days and transportation of household goods. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 25 May 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-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 4 December 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 11 August 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: For wrongfully marrying O. O., while still legally married to R. A., for assaulting O. O. on divers occasions between 22 August 2013 and 20 April 2014, for forging a divorce decree and falsifying a DA Form 31. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 12 August 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 12 August 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 general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 27 August 2015, the applicant was notified the request for a conditional waiver was disapproved. On 5 October 2015, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of rights. On 14 October 2015, the administrative separation board convened, and the applicant appeared with counsel. Out of the four allegations, the board found only one warranted the separation and recommended the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 10 November 2015 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 13 February 2013 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 33 / Bachelor’s Degree / 126 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 92A20, Automated Logistical Specialist / 10 years, 4 months, 29 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 23 June 2005 – 17 November 2007 / HD RA, 18 November 2007 – 12 February 2013 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Iraq (14 August 2007 – 31 October 2008); Afghanistan (1 July 2011 – 23 June 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM-3, AAM-3, MUC, AGCM-3, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-3, NATOMDL / The applicant’s AMHRR reflects award of a fourth OSR, however, the award is not reflected on the DD Form 214. g. Performance Ratings: 1 September 2008 – 4 February 2010 / Fully Capable 5 February 2010 – 31 January 2012 / Among The Best 1 February 2012 – 31 May 2014 / Fully Capable 1 June 2014 – 10 October 2014 / Fully Capable 1 October 2014 – 12 July 2015 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Tacoma Police Department Incident Report, dated 23 August 2013, reflects the applicant was arrested for committing Assault – Non- aggravated (Simple) Family, on 22 August 2013. Tacoma Police Department Incident Report, dated 20 April 2014, reflects the applicant was involved in Domestic Violence where the offense listed was Assault – Non-aggravated (Simple) Family, occurring on 19 April 2014. Two Developmental Counseling Forms, for recommendation for UCMJ action and notification of chapter 14-12c (commission of a serious offense) initiation. Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY),” to “Confined by Civil Authorities (CCA),” effective 5 May 2015; and From “CCA,” to “PDY,” effective 18 May 2015. FG Article 15, dated 7 July 2015, for on or about 17 June 2013, with intent to defraud, falsely make in its entirety, a certain divorce decree in the following words and figures, to wit: a court document dissolving the marriage of R. O. P. or words to that effect, which said divorce decree would, if genuine, apparently operate to the legal harm of another and which could be used to the legal harm of R. O. P, in that the spouse would be deprived of dependent benefits, for, on or about 28 June 2013, wrongfully marry. O. O., having at the time, of the applicant’s said marriage to R. A., a lawful living spouse, to wit: R. A., and for, on or about 20 April 2015, with intent to deceive, sign an official record, to wit: DA Form 31, which record was false in that the leave address was not the intended destination, and was then known by the applicant to be so false. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4; forfeiture of $1225 pay per month for two months, $1225 pay, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 9 January 2016; extra duty for 45 days; and oral reprimand. DA Form 4187, dated 17 November 2015, reflects the applicant’s rank was reduced to Private (E-1) with an effective date of 10 November 2015. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 12 days (Confined by Civilian Authorities, 5 May 2015 – 17 May 2015) / Released by Civilian Authorities j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Department of Veterans Affairs Summary of Benefits, dated 31 August 2021, reflecting a combined service-connected evaluation is 80 percent. The record did not indicate the conditions that formed the basis of the rating. (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 22 June 2015, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with relational problems NOS, but was cleared for 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 TBI 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, if present when determining final disposition. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; copies of military personnel records; email court document; New York State Unified Court System Appearance Detail; Judiciary Magistrates’ Courts Ughelli letter; St. Louis Community College Official Transcript; Walden University Unofficial Transcript; Copy of Associate in Arts Business Administration Degree. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: As of 17 February 2016, the applicant was pursuing a Master of Public Administration degree at Walden University. 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 waivable and nonwaivable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaivable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 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 event, which led to the discharge from the Army, was an isolated incident. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-5, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends good service, including several combat tours. The applicant contends after completing all punishments imposed by the Article 15, the company commander refused to lift the flag initiated in May 2015 blocking enlistment into the Army Reserve or National Guard. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the command team refused to authorize ETS leave, and the applicant was unable to clear the installation. Additionally, the command team signed the DA Forms 31 of other Soldiers with the same period and the applicant was denied; against the advice of legal counsel who said the applicant should not be treated any differently from any other Soldier clearing the installation on ETS. The Board is an independent body, not bound by prior decisions in its review of subsequent cases because no two cases present the same issues. The applicant contends there was a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood by the Veterans Affairs Administration. The applicant did submit a Department of Veterans Affairs Summary of Benefits letter, dated 31 August 2021, reflecting a combined evaluation of 80 percent to support the contention. The applicant’s AMHRR contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of in-service relational problems NOS. The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 22 June 2015, which indicated the applicant was diagnosed with relational problems NOS but was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. 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 601-210, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of “4.” An RE code of “4” cannot be waived, and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. The applicant contends pursing a Masters of Public Administration degree at Walden University. 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: Adjustment Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant was diagnosed in service with an Adjustment Disorder and service connected by the VA for Chronic Adjustment Disorder. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that applicant’s Adjustment Disorder does not provide mitigation for the basis of separation, as there is no natural sequela between an Adjustment Disorder and wrongfully entering another marriage, assaulting a spouse, or forging a divorce decree. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, to include the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder mitigated the applicant’s basis for separation – forging a divorce decree, domestic violence on numerous occasions, falsifying a DA 31, and wrongfully getting married while still legally married to another woman. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the event, which led to the discharge from the Army, was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant’s assertion of an isolated incident is not supported by the file. The applicant’s records support the falsifying a DA 31 and wrongfully getting married while still legally married to another woman took place over the course of several years and the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder does not mitigate the applicant’s misconduct. (2) The applicant contends good service, including several combat tours. The Board considered the applicant’s 10 years of service, including 2 combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and the numerous awards received by the applicant but determined that these factors did not outweigh the applicant’s forging a divorce decree, domestic violence on numerous occasions, falsifying a DA 31, and wrongfully getting married while still legally married to another woman. (3) The applicant contends after completing all punishments imposed by the Article 15, the company commander refused to lift the flag initiated in May 2015 blocking enlistment into the Army Reserve or National Guard. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention that the discharge was improper or inequitable. In light of the current evidence of record, the Board determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate. (4) The applicant contends the command team refused to authorize ETS leave, and the applicant was unable to clear the installation. Additionally, the command team signed the DA Forms 31 of other Soldiers with the same period and the applicant was denied; against the advice of legal counsel who said the applicant should not be treated any differently from any other Soldier clearing the installation on ETS. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention that the discharge was improper or inequitable. In light of the current evidence of record, the Board determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate. (5) The applicant contends being diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood by the Veterans Affairs Administration. The Board considered this contention and determined applicant’s Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood do not mitigate the misconduct of forging a divorce decree, domestic violence on numerous occasions, falsifying a DA 31, and wrongfully getting married while still legally married to another woman. Thus, the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable. (6) The applicant contends a desire to rejoin military service. The Board considered this contention and determined that a change to the applicant’s RE code is not warranted because of the severity of the applicant’s misconduct. 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 pursing a Master of Public Administration degree at Walden University. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s pursuit of a Master of Public Administration degree at Walden University does not outweigh the misconduct based on the seriousness of the applicant’s offense of forging a divorce decree, domestic violence on numerous occasions, falsifying a DA 31, and wrongfully getting married while still legally married to another woman. 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 applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of forging a divorce decree, domestic violence on numerous occasions, falsifying a DA 31, and wrongfully getting married while still legally married to another woman. 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. (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 Board voted not to change the applicant’s RE code because of the severity of the applicant’s misconduct. 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 AR20210001921 1