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 and a change to the applicant’s narrative reason to “miscellaneous.” The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, in September 2013, the applicant was directed to report to CID where the applicant was informed there was an open investigation regarding an allegation of indecent assault which allegedly occurred seven years earlier. In April 2014, the investigation was closed without arrest. In the same month a 15-6 investigation was completed regarding the same allegation, despite the lack of evidence supporting the seven year old allegation, an Article 15 was imposed for maltreatment and harassment of a Soldier. For the first time on 2 June 2014, the applicant was formally notified of being recommended for involuntary administrative separation resulting from the Article 15 and as a co-issued Relief for Cause NCOER arising from the same seven year old allegation. On 20 June 2014, the applicant prepared an appeal packet through TDS for the purposes of presentation to the hospital command for review and reconsideration. Said packet was never presented to the proper command authority and thus the applicant’s right to present an appeal was violated. On 25 August 2014, presumably because of this administrative error, the applicant was again notified for the second time, the applicant would be recommended for involuntary administrative separation. The applicant again prepared an appeal packet for review by command on 30 September 2014. From 30 September to 13 November 2014, the applicant was unaware of the status regarding the pending administrative separation and remained flagged. On 13 November 2014, the applicant was again notified for the third time, the applicant was being recommended for involuntary administrative separation. On 16 December 2014 while pending separation, the applicant was again called by the command and advised the applicant was being recommended for separation in connection with the Qualitative Management Program as because of the same Article 15 and co-issued Relief or Cause NCOER from the same seven year old allegation. On 30 January 2015, the applicant still had not heard anything additional regarding the separation and submitted a packet appealing the QMP recommendation. In April 2015, the applicant was advised the QMP was denied. The applicant was also advised the official date of release was 1 November 2015. In August of 2015, the applicant was last notified of the pending separation, and advised the Administrative Separation Board was scheduled for September 2015. The separation board was held and, because of a now eight year old unsubstantiated and utterly unverifiable allegation and resulted in a recommended for separation. In October 2015, aware the applicant was scheduled to be separated under the QMP on 1 November 2015, the command requested and was granted an extension to hold the applicant for an additional 60 days, beyond the 1 November 2015 QMP date to impose the administrative action recommended by the administrative separation board. In December of 2015, the applicant was separated. Since the applicant accepted the REDUX option at 15 years of service, the imposed characterization resulted in loss of 20 plus days of leave and a debt to the Government in the amount of $7300. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 2 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-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 11 December 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 March 2015. In the memorandum it was noted the applicant was read the original chapter paper on 2 June 2014. Since then, the legal wording was changed twice. The chapter was subsequently changed to reflect the different legal wording. On 26 January 2015, a SSG from the ADL went to TDS to pick up the completed green chapter packet for the applicant’s case. The green chapter packet had been missing since then. Thus, the applicant had to re-sign the Acknowledgement of receipt of Separation Notice. The new signed version is now in place. (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Between on or about 1 August 2012 and 5 August 2013, the applicant maltreated a subordinate Soldier by making offensive comments and gestures of a sexual nature on diverse occasions. The applicant also sexually harassed the Soldier, created a hostile work environment for the Soldier, attempted to coerce the Soldier into not filing an Equal Opportunity complaint against the applicant and engaged in an inappropriate relationship with the Soldier. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 16 July 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 16 July 2015, the applicant requested consideration of the case by an administrative separation board. The AMHRR is void of an administrative board proceedings. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 25 November 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) / It was noted in accordance with AR 635-200, Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separation, paragraph 1-33, 6 September 2011, the separation authority received and reviewed the enclosed administrative separation packet and Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) proceedings pertaining to the applicant, to determine whether the applicant should be processed under administrative separation provisions of AR 635-200, or processed through the physical disability system under the provisions of AR 635-40, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation, 8 February 2006. Based on a careful review of the above referenced matters and the medical examination of the applicant, the separation authority determined the medical condition outlined in the MEB was not a direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct which led to the recommendation for administrative separation. Additionally, the separation authority has determined there are no other circumstances within this individual case which warrant disability processing under the provisions of AR 635-40 instead of completion of administrative separation under the provision of AR 635-200. The separation authority determined the board error, alleged by CPT B. R. counsel for the respondent, did not materially prejudice a substantial right to the applicant and had no bearing on the outcome of the proceedings. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: The Commander’s Report reflects the date of reenlistment as 1 February 2012 / Indefinite, the DD Form 4 for this reenlistment is not contained in the applicant’s AMHRR. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 38 / Master’s Degree / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-7 / 68E40, Dental Specialist / 17 years, 10 months, 20 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 22 January 1998 – 3 April 2003 / HD RA, 4 April 2003 – 24 March 2005 / HD RA, 25 March 2005 – 17 May 2007 / HD RA, 18 May 2007 – 31 January 2012 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Kuwait (10 December 1998 – 4 April 1999); Bosnia (3 September 2000 – 1 March 2001); Iraq (21 June 2009 – 12 June 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: MSM, ARCOM-2, AAM-9, AGCM-6, NDSM, AFEM-2, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, NCOPDR-3, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL, g. Performance Ratings: 21 August 2011 – 3 July 2013 / Among the Best 4 July 2013 – 26 December 2013 / Marginal 27 December 2013 – 26 December 2014 / Among the Best h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Findings and Recommendations of a 15-6 Informal Investigation of Alleged misconduct, dated 27 August 2013, reflect: Allegation #1: Whether the applicant sexually harassed SPC M. D or anyone else. The evidence substantiates the applicant sexually harassed SPC D. Allegation #2: Whether the applicant created a hostile work environment. The evidence substantiates the applicant, largely unaware the comments and actions were offensive, created a hostile work environment for SPC D. Allegation #3: Whether the applicant stalked SPC D. the evidence does not substantiate the allegation. Allegation #4. Whether the applicant attempted to coerce SPC D. into not filing an Equal Opportunity complaint. The evidence substantiates the applicant’s actions the day SPC D. filed the EO complaint were viewed as intimidating. Allegation #5. Whether ADL personnel were aware of the applicant’s actions. If so, did they inform the ADL chain of command: The evidence does not substantiate ADL personnel or chain of commander were aware of any of the allegations prior to SPC D. making a complaint. FG Article 15, dated 22 January 2014, on or about 1 August 2012 and 5 August 2013, for maltreating SPC M. D. by making offensive comments and gestures of a sexual nature on divers occasions and giving SPC M. D. an erotic book and telling SPC M. D. to read the book and telling SPC M. D. the applicant was going to find out the address and phone number, and winking and blowing kisses in a suggestive manner. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $1,000 pay per month for two months; extra duty for 45 days; and oral reprimand. CID Report of Investigation – Final, dated 30 April 2014, reflects an investigation established probable cause to believe the applicant committed the offense of Indecent Assault when the applicant approached SPC [redacted] and slapped SPC [redacted] buttocks with the hand. Investigation also determined probable cause did not exist to believe the applicant committed the offense of Indecent Acts against civilian [redacted]. Civilian [redacted] indicated they did not believe the incident in which the applicant rubbed the hand up and down [redacted] thigh was sexual in manner or to cause physical harm. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; attorney brief; DD Form 214; ERB; 38 certificates. 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 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 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 the discharge should be upgraded under the theory of equity specifically, the misconduct at issue involved an allegation of a single incident of behavior occurring more than seven years before the allegation was made and although a CID investigation was conducted there existed no physical evidence supporting any maltreatment or harassment of any Soldier. The AMHRR reflects a 15-6 investigation revealed the evidence substantiated the applicant sexually harassed SPC D. The applicant also received an FG Article 15, dated 22 January 2014, on or about 1 August 2012 and 5 August 2013, for maltreating SPC M. D. by making offensive comments and gestures of a sexual nature on divers occasions and giving SPC M. D. an erotic book and telling SPC M. D. to read the book and telling SPC M. D. the applicant was going to find out the address and phone number, and winking and blowing kisses in a suggestive manner. 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 discharge stemmed from a seven-year-old allegation. The AMHRR reflects in the Separation Notification Memorandum, dated 19 March 2015, the applicant was informed of the following reasons: Between on or about 1 August 2012 and 5 August 2013, the applicant maltreated a subordinate Soldier by making offensive comments and gestures of a sexual nature on diverse occasions. The applicant also sexually harassed the Soldier, created a hostile work environment for the Soldier, attempted to coerce the Soldier into not filing an Equal Opportunity complaint against the applicant and engaged in an inappropriate relationship with the Soldier. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the command did not properly notify the applicant of the involuntary administrative separation. Army Regulation 635-200 provides when the reason for separation requires the notification procedure, the command will notify the Solider in writing of the separation recommended. Evidence of the AMHRR reflects in a Memorandum for Record: Chapter Delay for [applicant], dated 19 March 2015, it was noted the applicant was read the original chapter paper on 2 June 2014. Since then, the legal wording was changed twice. The chapter was subsequently changed to reflect the different legal wording. On 26 January 2015, a SSG from the ADL went to TDS to pick up the completed green chapter packet for the applicant’s case. The green chapter packet had been missing since then. Thus, the applicant had to re-sign the Acknowledgement of receipt of Separation Notice. The new signed version is now in place. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends through no fault of the applicant, the command delayed the convening of the administrative separation board five full months after becoming aware of the pending QMP separation. Army Regulation 635-200 provides when the reason for separation requires the administrative board procedure, the commander will notify the Solider in writing separation has been recommended and the right to an administrative separation board. The board proceedings are void from the AMHRR. The AMHRR reflects the separation authority determined the board error, alleged by CPT B. R. counsel for the respondent, regarding the introduction of evidence and new witness did not materially prejudice a substantial right to the applicant and had no bearing on the outcome of the proceedings. The AMHRR is void of any QMP notification or separation decision. The applicant contends good service, including three combat tours. 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 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. 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: Depression with Anxiety, Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Dysthymic Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Neurosis/Generalized Anxiety Disorder and TBI. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant’s Depression with Anxiety, Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Dysthymic Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Neurosis/Generalized Anxiety Disorder and TBI existed during service. (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 above- mentioned behavior health conditions do not mitigate the applicant’s offenses of maltreatment of a subordinate female Soldier by making offensive comments and gestures of a sexual nature (divers occasions); sexual harassment; creating a hostile work environment, and attempt to coerce Soldier into not filing an equal opportunity complaint as none of the applicant’s behavioral health conditions impair one's ability to differentiate right from wrong and adhere to the right. (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 applicant’s the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Depression with Anxiety, Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Dysthymic Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Neurosis/Generalized Anxiety Disorder and TBI do not outweigh the applicant’s offenses – sexual harassment, maltreatment of a subordinate, offensive comments of a sexual nature, and hostile work environment. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant’s discharge was based on a single incident of misconduct that resulted in an Article 15 and Relief for Cause NCOER that occurred in 2006, seven (7) years before the allegation was made, CID found no physical evidence to support the allegation and no charges were preferred. The Board considered this contention and determined that the evidence does not support an impropriety. Rather, the applicant’s record reflects that the applicant received an Article 15 dated 22 January 2014 for maltreatment of a female SPC on or about 1 August 2012 to 5 August 2013. Additionally, an AR 15-6 investigation dated 27 August 2013 included evidence that the applicant’s offense occurred between 1 August 2012 and 5 August 2013. Finally, the applicant was represented by TDS, had an administrative separation board, and the administrative board proceedings were legally reviewed prior to the Separation Authority’s final action. Therefore, the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable. (2) The Command improperly retained the applicant past the applicant’s Qualitative Management Program (QMP) release date in violation of AR 635-200, paragraphs 1-26 and 1- 15(c)(1), (4), and (5), and Gay Veterans Association Inc v Secretary of Defense. 668 F Supp 11 (D C Cir 1987). The Board considered this contention and determined that, while Army policy does prohibit extending a Soldier past the Soldier’s ETS for purposes of administrative separation, a QMP release date is different from an ETS date. The applicant erroneously argues that the applicant QMP release date is the applicant’s new ETS date. However, the applicant was serving an indefinite term of service which does not include an ETS date. Rather, Soldiers with indefinite terms of service are retained until the maximum retention control point for the Soldier’s rank at the time of separation. Therefore, there is no error. (3) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed to miscellaneous. The Board considered this contention and determined there were insufficient mitigating factors such that would warrant an upgrade of the discharge. Thus, the discharge is proper and equitable. (4) The applicant contends through no fault of the applicant, the command delayed the convening of the administrative separation board five full months after becoming aware of the pending QMP separation. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s records reflect that a memorandum dated 19 March 2015 indicating the delay was based on re-notifying the applicant to comply with legal requirements. Further, AR 635-200 does not prohibit re-notifying or amending notification memoranda when required to accurately reflect the bases of separation to ensure that the Soldier receives adequate due process. Therefore, the applicant’s discharge is proper and equitable. (5) The applicant contends good service, including three combat tours. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record, but determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By sexual harassment, maltreatment of a subordinate, offensive comments of a sexual nature, hostile work environment, and inappropriate relationship, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (6) 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. (7) 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. 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, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Depression with Anxiety, Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Dysthymic Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Neurosis/Generalized Anxiety Disorder and TBI do not outweigh the applicant’s offenses – sexual harassment, maltreatment of a subordinate, offensive comments of a sexual nature, and hostile work environment. 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. Therefore, the applicant’s General Discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable Discharge. (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 AR20210002094 1