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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant, through counsel, requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, serving 14 years of honorable service. The applicant deployed to the Middle East on three different occasions, for a total of 39 months in combat. The applicant received positive performance evaluations for the applicant’s service as a Signal Support Systems Specialist. In 2012, the applicant completed training as a Recruiter. The applicant’s evaluation reports show high marks from 2011 to 2015 and the applicant received multiple awards. The applicant did not commit any acts of misconduct other than the acts described in the General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR). In 2007, after the second deployment to Iraq, the applicant began experiencing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The applicant completed a Post Deployment Health Assessment (PDHRA), and reported nightmares and trauma-related avoidance, which were later determined to be symptoms of PTSD. The applicant’s spouse of 11 years, began to witness symptoms of the applicant’s PTSD in 2007 and advised the applicant to seek treatment, but the applicant refused because of the stigma. In 2014, the applicant began to seek treatment for PTSD. In 2015, the applicant was forced to go on a profile for PTSD and completed 30 days of inpatient care from July to August 2015. In 2015, an initial medical evaluation board (MEB), Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) Behavioral Health Evaluation found the applicant to be unfit for medical retention standards based on a diagnosis of PTSD. The reviewing medical doctor concluded the applicant must be referred to the MEB. Despite the findings, the applicant was not medically separated for PTSD. The applicant continues to suffer from PTSD, attempting suicide on four occasions, and attends the Concord Vet Center for treatment because the applicant is ineligible for VA Benefits because of the discharge. The applicant’s misconduct led to a GOMOR and the discharge. The separation board did not include any misconduct, other than the social event and subsequent deceit. The applicant provided eight character statements to prevent the GOMOR from being filed in applicant’s record. General B. did not deem separation as an appropriate recourse for the applicant’s actions, stating “further incidents of this nature may result in more serious actions being taken.” The applicant is remorseful and ashamed of failing to live up to the Army Values. The MEB process was terminated, because of General S’ recommendation. The applicant accepts responsibility for the mistakes the applicant made, but believes the discharge was too harsh and inequitable because the applicant served meritoriously for 14 years, with no other instances of misconduct. The separation order violated Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 1-17b because the GOMOR issued by Major General B., concluded separation should not occur based on the same acts of misconduct before the separation board. The applicant was diagnosed with PTSD before the acts of misconduct, which should mitigate the misconduct. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 27 April 2023, and by 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, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 5 January 2016 c. Separation Facts: The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is void of the complete case separation file. However, the applicant provided documents which are described below in 3c(2), (5), and (6). (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF / The Report of Proceedings By Investigation Officer / Board of Officers, dated 30 June 2015, provided details of the reasons the applicant was recommended for separation. Formal AR 15-6 Investigation Findings and Recommendations reflects the administrative separation board found the applicant: Did, on 27 June 2014, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 2-1a(1)(d), USAREC Regulation 600-25, dated 9 February 2009, by wrongfully engaging in activities of a personal, unofficial nature with multiple subjects of recruiting efforts. This is in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. In view of the finding, the conduct did not warrant separation. Did on 27 June 2014, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraphs 2-1a(1)(b) and 2-1a(1)(e), USAREC Regulation 600-25, dated 9 February 2009, by wrongfully allowing multiple subjects of recruiting efforts into the applicant’s dwelling place, some of whom spent the night. This is in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. In view of this finding, the conduct did not warrant separation. Did on or about 27 June 2014, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraphs 2-1a(1)(c) and 2-5a(4), USAREC Regulation 600-25, dated 9 February 2009, by wrongfully consuming alcohol with or providing alcohol to subjects of recruiting efforts. This is in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. In view of the finding, the conduct did warrant separation. Did on 27 June 2014, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 2-5a(8), USAREC Regulation 600-25, dated 9 February 2009, by wrongfully allowing individuals under the state drinking age to consume alcoholic beverages. This is in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. In view of this finding, the conduct did warrant separation. Did on 10 July 2014, wrongfully endeavor to impede an investigation into allegations of misconduct against the applicant by asking Future Soldier (FS) D. T. to lie if asked about the party on 27 June 2014 and coaching FS T. on what to say. This is in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. In view of the finding, the conduct did warrant separation. Did on 12 July 2014, wrongfully endeavor to impede an investigation into allegations of misconduct against the applicant by calling Fort Jackson Basic Combat Training pretending to be Private (PVT) M. S.’s father and asking PVT S. to lie if asked about the party on 27 June 2014 and coaching PVT S. on what to say. This is in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. In view of the finding, the conduct did warrant separation. Did on 17 July 2014, with the intent to deceive, make to CPT B. H., an official statement, to wit: FS D. P. called the applicant to say FS M. S. was upset because FS M. S. did not get a chance to say goodbye to the applicant before FS M. S. shipped to basic training; FS P. asked the applicant to stop by a going away function for FS S.; The applicant did stop by to wish FS S. good luck and give FS S. some last minute advice, but only stood at the function for five minutes; The applicant did not consume any alcohol while at the going away function; The applicant was unaware of any underage drinking at the function, and Someone offered the applicant a beer at the function, but the applicant declined because the applicant had to leave, which statements were totally false, and were then known by the applicant to be so false. This is in violation of Article 107, UCMJ. In view of the finding, the conduct did not warrant separation. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 30 June 2015, the administrative separation board convened, and the applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended the applicant’s discharge with characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. On 18 December 2015, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 18 December 2015 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions / The separation authority did not find the applicant’s medical condition was the direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct which led to the recommendation for administrative separation nor did other circumstance of the individual case warrant disability processing instead of further processing for administrative separation. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 4 December 2013 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 30 / 1 Year College / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-7 / 79R40, Recruiter; 25U14, Signal Support System Specialist / 14 years, 3 months, 4 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 2 October 2001 – 8 December 2005 / HD RA, 9 December 2005 – 17 December 2009 / HD RA, 18 December 2009 – 3 December 2013 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Afghanistan (30 May 2009 – 28 April 2010); Iraq (28 January 2005 – 28 January 2006, 7 October 2006 – 22 December 2007) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-2CS, ICM-4CS, ARCOM-5, AAM-4, MUC, VUA, AGCM- 4, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-4, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: 1 April – 31 March 2014 / Among the Best 1 April 2014 – 31 March 2015 / Marginal 1 April 2015 – 30 December 2015 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 23 January 2015, reflects on 27 June 2014, the applicant hosted a party at the applicant’s residence. The applicant supplied alcohol to underage Soldiers and Future Soldiers at this party. When initially questioned about this incident, the applicant made a false official statement to the Investigating Officer. The applicant submitted a rebuttal statement denying the allegations and not being read the rights when initially questioned by the Investigating Officer. The applicant submitted numerous character references. The GOMOR was placed permanently in the applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). Orders 355-0152, dated 21 December 2015, reflect the applicant was to be reassigned to the U.S. Army Transition Point and discharged on 5 January 2016 from the Regular Army. The applicant’s Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 6 January 2016, reflects the applicant was flagged for Involuntary Separation or Discharge (Field Initiated) (BA), effective 21 March 2015; was ineligible for reenlistment because of Pending Separation (9V). The applicant was reduced from E-7 to E-1 effective 5 March 2015. [The applicant’s rank was restored to E-7 post-service.] The applicant’s DD Form 214, reflects the applicant had completed the first full term of service. The applicant was discharged under the authority of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, with a narrative reason of Misconduct (Serious Offense). The DD Form 214 was not authenticated with the applicant’s signature. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Physical Profile, dated 9 November 2015, reflects the applicant was on permanent profile for the medical condition post-traumatic stress disorder (S3) and the applicant required a medical evaluation board. Medical Evaluation Board IDES Behavioral Health Evaluation, dated 9 November 2015, reflecting the diagnosed PTSD did not meet medical retention standards. The applicant was unlikely to improve to permit return to full duty. Diagnoses which met medical retention standards: Major depressive disorder and alcohol use disorder. Medical Evaluation Board Narrative Summary, dated 16 November 2015, reflecting the applicant’s history of medical issues. The summary included the diagnoses presented in the MEB and included the diagnosis established by the QTC/VA Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) examiners: Alcohol dependence in sustained remission; traumatic brain injury (TBI); and major depression, recurrent, mild. Memorandum for Record, dated 11 January 2016, reflecting the former medical provider recommended the applicant’s spouse be the applicant’s primary caretaker because of the applicant’s diagnosis of PTSD and depression. Although the applicant had been in treatment for the past year, the applicant’s condition was unstable. The applicant was a high risk for suicide and should not be left unattended until the applicant became more stable. The applicant’s treatment was disrupted because of the unexpected separation from the military, without any benefits. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Concord Vet Center, dated 4 March 2016, reflecting the applicant was being treated for PTSD. The applicant screened positive for traumatic brain injury (TBI) during the intake screenings at the Vet Center but was never treated for TBI while in the military. The applicant attempted to seek mental health services for the PTSD symptoms while on active duty, but the first sergeant threatened to relieve the applicant of the duties as platoon leader. (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Legal Brief with all listed exhibits A through O; three photographs. 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) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (5) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. (6) Paragraph 14-12c prescribes a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes, provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of “JKQ” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waivable and nonwaivable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-1 Applies to: Person completing his or her term of active service who is considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. Eligibility: Qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waivable. 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’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR) includes partial facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. The applicant’s AMHRR does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was not authenticated by the applicant’s signature. The applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of Misconduct (Serious Offense), with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant provided the administrative separation board proceedings, which reveal the reason for separation. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Misconduct (Serious Offense),” and the separation code is “JKQ.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends PTSD affected behavior which ultimately led to the discharge. The applicant provided several medical documents indicating a diagnosis of PTSD; TBI; major depressive disorder; alcohol use disorder; alcohol dependence in sustained remission; and major depression, recurrent, mild. The applicant provided third party statements from family members and fellow Soldiers attesting to the applicant’s change in behavior after deployment. The applicant was being processed under the IDES for PTSD, but the separation authority found the applicant’s medical condition was not the direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct which led to the recommendation for administrative separation nor did other circumstances of the individual case warrant disability processing instead of further processing for administrative separation. 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 the separation order violated Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 1- 17b. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 1-17b, states separation per this regulation normally should not be based on conduct which has already been considered at an administrative or judicial proceeding and disposed of in a manner indicating separation was not warranted. The applicant’s AMHRR reflects the applicant received adverse administrative action when the applicant received a GOMOR for the applicant’s misconduct, which led to the separation. The applicant provided evidence reflecting the administrative separation board was the only administrative proceeding in the applicant’s record and the separation board found certain actions committed by the applicant warranted separation. The AMHRR is void of any judicial proceedings. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service, including three combat tours. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. 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. The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 601-201, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of “3.” There is no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or the RE code. An RE Code of “3” indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army’s needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant’s good military service. 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, PTSD, and Major Depressive Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board’s Medical Advisor found that the applicant was diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder, Major Depression, and PTSD in service. Applicant’s PTSD fell below medical retention standards, and the VA has service connected applicant for PTSD. (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 was diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder, Major Depression, and PTSD in service. Applicant’s PTSD fell below medical retention standards, and the VA has service connected applicant’s PTSD. Accordingly, applicant has potentially mitigating BH conditions. However, there is no natural sequela between PTSD, Major Depression, or an Adjustment Disorder and violating regulations regarding future soldiers, covering up the incident, and falsifying statements since none of applicant’s BH conditions interfere with the ability to distinguish between right and wrong and act in accordance with the right. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board considered the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD, Major Depression, or Adjustment Disorder outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – violating regulations regarding future soldiers, covering up the incident, and falsifying statements – for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant’s narrative reason for discharge is appropriate based on the severity of applicant’s misconduct. Misconduct (serious offense) is appropriate due to violating regulations regarding future soldiers, covering up the incident, and falsifying statements basis for separation being a serious offense. (2) The applicant contends PTSD affected behavior which ultimately led to the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined applicant’s PTSD does not mitigate violating regulations regarding future soldiers, covering up the incident, and falsifying statements the basis for separation. (3) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s statement of an isolated incident does not outweigh the misconduct based on the seriousness of the applicant’s offense of violating regulations regarding future soldiers, covering up the incident, and falsifying statements which occurred over time with planning from the applicant. (4) The applicant contends the separation order violated Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 1-17b. The Board determined there was not a violation of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 1-17b as the applicant was separated due to derogatory information in applicant’s AMHRR which includes all administrative documents. (5) The applicant contends good service, including three combat tours. The Board considered the applicant’s 14 years of service, including 3 combat tours in Location Afghanistan and Iraq, and the numerous awards received by the applicant but determined that these factors did not outweigh the applicant’s violating regulations regarding future soldiers, covering up the incident, and falsifying statements. (6) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. 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. (7) The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. The Board considered this contention and voted to maintain the RE-code to a RE-3, which is a waivable code. An RE Code of “3” indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army’s needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes, if appropriate. 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 PTSD, adjustment disorder, and major depressive disorder did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of violating regulations regarding future soldiers, covering up the incident, and falsifying statements. 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, 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 AR20210002038 1