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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the characterization of service was incorrect at the time of separation. One UCMJ action did not warrant anything but an honorable discharge. An investigation was started due to the applicant filing a SHARP complaint against a senior noncommission officer. The applicant was found in violation of Article 92. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 17 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 20 April 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 13 March 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On diverse occasions the applicant failed to obey a lawful order by wrongfully using Government Travel Credit Card to make unauthorized and improper charges; knowingly submitted a false record; make a false official statement, wear unauthorized rank, and failure to be just debts. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 17 March 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 31 March 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 29 October 2012 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 / High School Graduate / 99 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 15R10, Attack Helicopter Repairer / 4 years, 2 months, 20 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 1 February 2011 – 28 October 2012 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-4, AGCM, NDSM, KDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Informal AR 15-6 Investigation Findings and Recommendations, dated 5 August 2014, reflects the investigation officer found the applicant: Improperly used a Government Travel Card; Improperly wearing the unauthorized rank of corporal; Violated leave and pass provisions while training at temporary duty assignment and attempted to defraud the United States by falsely claiming DTS authorizations. The investigating officer recommends the applicant be removed from school immediately and court martial charges be preferred. FG Article 15, dated 8 October 2014, on divers’ occasions between on or about 12 June to 29 July 2014, disobey a lawful order by wrongfully using Government Travel Card to make unauthorized and improper charges. On 9 June 2014, with intent to deceive sign a DA Form 31 with a false leave address. Between 9 July and 30 July 2014, with intent to deceive submit a DD Form 1610 and make a false official statement. On or about 27 June 2014, wrongfully and without authority wear upon uniform the insignia or grade of corporal. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; forfeiture of $1,017 pay per month for two months (suspended) and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. The applicant’s Election of rights dated 17 March 2015, reflects in the past 24 months the applicant was not a victim of sexual assault for which an unrestricted report was filed. 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 Medical History, dated 5 February 2015, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Taking medication for anxiety, depression, and nerviness. Report of Medical Examination, dated 5 February 2015, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Depression. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 4 February 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. However, no results were indicated. The applicant is psychologically cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the chain of command. The exam today included clinical interview, review of BHDP, and review of medical records. The exam finds there is no indication of psychiatric disorder that would warrant consideration of medical separation. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 and a ARBA letter. 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 14-12b, addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 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 “JKA” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12b, pattern of misconduct. 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-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 contends the characterization of service was incorrect at the time of separation and, an investigation was started due to the applicant filing a SHARP complaint against a senior noncommission officer. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant’s Election of rights, dated 17 March 2015, reflects in the past 24 months the applicant was not a victim of sexual assault for which an unrestricted report was filed. Informal AR 15-6 Investigation Findings and Recommendations, dated 5 August 2014, reflects the investigation officer found the applicant: Improperly used a Government Travel Card; Improperly wearing the unauthorized rank of corporal; Violated leave and pass provisions while training at temporary duty assignment and attempted to defraud the United States by falsely claiming DTS authorizations. Also, Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. 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’s AMHRR includes a Report of Medical History, dated 5 February 2015, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Taking medication for anxiety, depression, and nerviness. The Report of Medical Examination, dated 5 February 2015, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Depression. A Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 4 February 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. However, no results were indicated. The applicant is psychologically cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the chain of command. The exam today included clinical interview, review of BHDP, and review of medical records. The exam finds there is no indication of psychiatric disorder that would warrant consideration of medical separation. 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: Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and victim of intimate partner violence (IPV). Additionally, the applicant asserts a SHARP complaint (specifics unclear in application and records), which may be sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a condition that could mitigate or excuse the discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found applicant is service connected for MDD and appears to have been victim of IPV on active duty. (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 MDD, which appears to be an exacerbation of pre-existing mood concerns given applicant’s reported history of psychiatric concerns dating back to age 17. The medical advisor also appreciates compelling data that applicant was the victim of domestic violence while on active duty. Circumstances of SHARP complaint are lacking sufficient data to opine on possible mitigation. Neither depression nor being the victim of IPV impairs one’s ability to differentiate between right and wrong and adhere to the right. There is no nexus between these conditions/circumstances and misuse of a Government Travel Card, submitting false records, making false statements, wearing unauthorized rank, or failure to appropriately pay debts. (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 MDD and being a victim of IPV outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – misuse of a Government Travel Card, submitting false records, making false statements, wearing unauthorized rank, or failure to appropriately pay debts – for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the characterization of service was incorrect at the time of separation and, an investigation was started due to the applicant filing a SHARP complaint against a senior noncommission officer. The Board considered this contention and determined there is insufficient evidence in the file to support the there was an investigation due to applicant filing a SHARP complaint against a senior noncommissioned officer. There is no record in the file of a SHARP complaint or investigation. The applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (2) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention and determined due to the severity of applicant’s misconduct an isolated incident is not sufficient to mitigate or excuse the applicant’s multiple misuse of government credit card, submitting false record, false official statement, wear of rank and failure to pay debts basis for separation. 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 MDD and being a victim of IPV did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of misuse of a Government Travel Card, submitting false records, making false statements, wearing unauthorized rank, or failure to appropriately pay debts. 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 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 AR20210002090 1