1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is honorable. The applicant requests a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, in August 2015, the applicant received a permanent GOMOR for misconduct which occurred during a deployment in 2013 in Afghanistan. The applicant was under the shadow of this investigation for nearly five months before finally receiving a GOMOR which ultimately ended the applicant’s military career. Despite this, the applicant made every effort to remain strong and conduct oneself with the highest degree of professionalism. As a result of this, the applicant was brought on as a Logistics Planning Specialist in the Command Planning Group, where the applicant worked directly for the CASCOM Commanding General as one of the primary speech writers. The applicant maintained a positive attitude, dedication to the mission, and an unwavering loyalty to the organization, despite the pending actions. When the applicant returned from Afghanistan in 2013, the applicant knew something was mentally wrong, however the applicant suppressed these feelings for as long as the applicant could manage. In 2014, the applicant reached a breaking point and despite professional reservations, the applicant made an appointment with Behavioral Health to receive treatment. During this time, the applicant was diagnosed with mental disorders ranging from panic disorder, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, etcetera. Since then, the applicant has been consistently receiving treatment via counseling therapy as well as medications. Most importantly, the applicant was properly diagnosed with having PTSD. Since being discharged from the Army in August 2016, the applicant has established oneself with the Veteran Affairs medical facility to continue treating the mental disorder. The applicant’s counselor recently initiated a PTSD specific working group and treatment plan for the applicant and the recovery process. As a commissioned officer in the United States Army, the applicant fully understood and still understands the expectations and Army Values to which conduct was to be upheld. The applicant understands under no circumstances should the applicant have ever wavered. However, the applicant strongly believes the misconduct which resulted in the bad discharge was completely out of character and due to the untreated and service-connected PTSD. Had the applicant received proper treatment for the PTSD, the applicant would have been given a disability retirement and no misconduct would have occurred. Consideration of the applicant’s OERs during and after the misconduct shows this behavior was completely out of character and was an isolated event. Also reference the letter of recommendations written by supervisors when the misconduct took place. Not one time in the applicant’s six years of service has the applicant ever performed subpar or been subject to any conduct, legal or criminal issues. The applicant made one mistake which the applicant truly believes was the consequence of an untreated mental disorder. The applicant has paid the price for this misconduct with the termination of the military career. As a parent of two children, the applicant has so much more potential to grow and provide for oneself and family. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 26 January 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: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b and 4-24a (1) / BNC / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 26 August 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 2 November 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b due to misconduct, moral or professional dereliction for the following reasons: Conduct unbecoming an officer as indicated by the GOMOR the applicant received on 7 October 2015, stating the applicant was in an adulterous relationship with an NCO, while deployed to RC East Afghanistan in 2013, and met with the NCO again in spring of 2015, while on leave. (3) Legal Consultation Date: On 16 November 2015 (4) Board of Inquiry (BOI): On 16 November, the applicant voluntarily tendered a resignation in lieu of further elimination proceedings conditioned upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than honorable. (5) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 15 December 2015, the GOSCA recommended approval of the applicant’s request for resignation in lieu of elimination. / Honorable (6) DA Ad Hoc Review Board: The AD Hoc review board considered the applicant’s request for resignation in lieu of elimination in accordance with AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4. (7) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 17 August 2016 / Honorable / The separation authority accepted the applicant’s resignation in lieu of elimination based on AR 600- 8-24, paragraph 4-2b. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 19 July 2009 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment: / Education: 22 / Bachelor’s Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-3 / 90A 3C 2B, Logistics / 7 years, 1 month, 8 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 14 February 2008 – 18 July 2009 / NIF e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (1 January 2012 – 16 November 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-2CS, ARCOM, AAM-2, NDSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 1 August 2010 – 1 October 2012 / Best Qualified 2 October 2012 – 1 October 2013 / Best Qualified 2 October 2013 – 10 June 2015 / Most Qualified 11 June 2015 – 12 November 2015 / Not Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Findings and Recommendations for AR 15-6 investigation, dated 18 September 2015, reflects the investigating officer determined the applicant did have a romantic relationship with SFC S. while SFC S. was legally married and while the investigator thinks it is like they had sex, the officer did not have enough evidence to prove it; the applicant did send pictures and communications which were sexual in nature to SFC S.; since they both admitted to meeting in Afghanistan, the applicant was married at the time; both admitted to SFC S. spouse of being in SFC S’s. living quarters which was a CENTCOM, General Order Violation; the investigating officer found it unlikely the applicant believed SFC S., was a contractor while in a deployed environment, however, only has circumstantial evidence to support the applicant knew SFC S. was enlisted; it is possible the applicant did not know SFC S. was married prior to being confronted by the spouse via phone; the timing and circumstances around SFC S’s leave to Ft Bragg in late March 2015 combined with the applicant taking leave after a weekend from 30 March 2015 to 3 April 2015 to be more than coincidental; and, the relationship between the applicant and SFC S. was discrediting to the service and to the friends and family of the spouse and would be an embarrassment to the service should it be publicized. The investigating officer recommended the applicant be removed from command for conduct unbecoming of an officer and the applicant receive a General Order Memorandum of Record to be filed in the permanent file. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 7 October 2015, reflects the applicant was reprimanded for engaging in an adulterous relationship with a married SFC, and for violating CENTCOM General Order Number 1, while the applicant was deployed to Regional Command East Afghanistan in 2013. An Army Regulation 15-6 investigation showed even after the SFC’s spouse confronted the applicant about the relationship in January 2015, the applicant met with the SFC yet again while the applicant was on leave in the spring of 2015. The applicant admitted to the SFC’s spouse, the applicant entered the SFC’s dwelling while they were both deployed. The applicant engaged in this misconduct while the applicant was married. The relationship came to the command’s attention when the enlisted Soldier’s spouse found nude pictures the applicant sent to the SFC in the SFC’s email account. Over the course of the applicant’s career, the Army has repeatedly reinforced expectations of officers both professionally and personally. The applicant disregarded the Army’s leadership principles and exercised exceedingly poor judgment when the applicant pursued a relationship with a Soldier while the applicant was married and while the applicant was deployed. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical Assessment, dated 8 January 2016, reflects the applicant noted being treated for bipolar disorder, depression, and anxiety. The applicant provided a copy of VA rating decision letter, dated 29 November 2016, which reflects the applicant was granted 70 percent disability for PTSD (also claimed as panic disorder, anxiety disorder, and depression). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; self-authored statement; DD Form 214; honorable discharge certificate; Army Volunteer record; two VA letters; two OER’s; two letters of recommendation. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant provided a copy of a volunteer statement which reflects the applicant volunteered for 47 hours in 2016 and 33 hours in 2017. 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 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. (1) Paragraph 1-23, provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 1-23a, states an officer will normally receive an honorable characterization of service when the quality of the officer’s service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty, or the final revocation of a security clearance under DODI 5200.02 and AR 380-67 for reasons that do not involve acts of misconduct for an officer. (3) Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty. (4) Paragraph 4-2b, prescribes for the elimination of an officer for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interests of national security. (5) Paragraph 4-20a (previously 4-24a), states an officer identified for elimination may, at any time during or prior to the final action in the elimination case elect one of the following options: (1) Submit a resignation in lieu of elimination; (2) request a discharge in lieu of elimination; and, (3) Apply for retirement in lieu of elimination if otherwise eligible. 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 “BNC” as the appropriate code to assign commissioned officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b, unacceptable conduct; and 4-24a (1), resignation in lieu of elimination. ? 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 a narrative reason change. The applicant’s record of service, 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 4, paragraph 4-2b, and 4-24a(1), AR 600-8-24 with a honorable conditions discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Unacceptable Conduct,” and the separation code is “BNC.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs 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 being discharged due to undiagnosed PTSD; and had the applicant received proper treatment for the PTSD, the applicant would have been given a disability retirement and no misconduct would have occurred. The applicant was diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. The applicant provided a copy of VA rating decision letter, dated 29 November 2016, which reflects the applicant was granted 70 percent disability for PTSD (also claimed as panic disorder, anxiety disorder, and depression). The Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) does not contain a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Army Regulations in pertinent part, stipulate circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends paying the price for the misconduct with the termination of the military career. 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 a combat tour. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant provided a copy of a volunteer statement which reflects the applicant volunteered for 47 hours in 2016 and 33 hours in 2017. 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: Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Panic Disorder, PTSD. Additionally, the applicant asserts Bipolar Disorder, 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 that the applicant was diagnosed in service with Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Panic Disorder, and PTSD. The VA has also service- connected the applicant’s PTSD. Applicant self-asserts having Bipolar Disorder at the time of military 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 the applicant was diagnosed in service with Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Panic Disorder, and PTSD. The VA has also service-connected the applicant’s PTSD. In addition, applicant self-asserts Bipolar Disorder, however, this diagnosis is not supported by any medical evidence. While liberal consideration was applied, the applicant already has an HD. With regards to request for a narrative reason change, none of the BH conditions mitigate an adulterous relationship because none of them 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. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Panic Disorder, and PTSD outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – adulterous relationship – for the aforementioned reason. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considerd this contention and determined that the applicant’s Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Panic Disorder, and PTSD do not outweigh an adulterous relationship, and that the applicant already holds an HD and no other relief is warranted. (2) The applicant contends being discharged due to undiagnosed PTSD. The Board considerd this contention and determined that the applicant’s BH conditions do not outweigh an adulterous relationship, and that the applicant already holds an HD and no other relief is warranted. (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 since the applicant already holds an HD, further relief was not warranted (4) The applicant contends paying the price for the misconduct with the termination of the military career. The Board considered this contention and determined that since the applicant already holds an HD, further relief was not warranted. (5) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered this contention and determined that since the applicant already holds an HD, further relief was not warranted. (6) The applicant provided a copy of a volunteer statement which reflects the applicant volunteered for 47 hours in 2016 and 33 hours in 2017. The Board considered this contention and determined that since the applicant already holds an HD, further relief was not warranted. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the characterization of service due to it already being Honorable. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable, and without medical mitigation. (3) As there is no RE-code listed on the applicant’s discharge paperwork due do service as an Officer, no upgrade actions are required for this item. 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 AR20210002358 1