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 discharge should be upgraded because the false claims and actions were not properly justified. A memorandum claims filing of a false travel voucher on 9 May 2001, but the applicant was not enlisted in 2001. The applicant could not file vouchers for events without the Chaplains’ consent. The applicant claims discrimination due to being discharged for stealing. The items from SPC A. claimed to be stolen, were not stolen by the applicant. There was no proof to justify the statement of purchasing the items off the Website Craigslist. None of the items worked so the applicant pawned them. The items did not add up to $920. The applicant would like to reenlist in the Army as a Chaplain. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 2 December 2022, 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: 12 January 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 28 September 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant submitted a false travel voucher on 9 May 2011; the applicant was absent without leave on 20 July 2011 and remained absent until 21 July 2011; and the applicant wrongfully stole property from SPC A. H. in the amount of about $920 on 10 September 2010. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 29 September 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 29 September 2011, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 28 October 2011, the applicant’s conditional waiver request was denied. On 8 November 2011, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of the rights. On 29 November 2011, the administrative separation board convened, and the applicant appeared with counsel. The Board determined the three reasons listed in the notification memorandum were supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The board recommended the applicant’s discharge with characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: On 12 December 2011, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board. / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 16 June 2009 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 92 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 56M1P, Chaplain Assistant / 2 years, 6 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. Memorandum with its associated investigative documents, dated 29 March 2011, subject: Article 139 Claim of SPC H. A., determined the claim as submitted was cognizable and meritorious under the provisions of Article 139, UCMJ and AR 27-20, Chapter 9, for the amount of $920, and directed the amount to be assessed from the applicant’s pay and reimbursed to SPC H. A. A Military Police Report, dated 20 September 2010, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: larceny of private property (on post). FG Article 15, dated 27 June 2011, with an intent to deceive, sign an official record, to wit: Claim for Reimbursement for Expenditures on Official Business, which record was totally false on 9 May 2011. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $733 pay per month for two months (suspended); and extra duty for 45 days. Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY)” to “Absent Without Leave (AWOL),” effective 20 July 2011; and From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective 21 July 2011. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 1 day (AWOL, 20 July 2011) / The applicant returned to the unit. j. Applicant Provided and/or AMHHR Listed PTSD / TBI / Other Behavioral Health Conditions: Report of Medical History, dated10 May 2011, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: The applicant was seen recently for adjustment disorder and depressed mood. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 18 August 2011, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: “Adjustment Disorder.” 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Memorandum (notification of initiating action to separate); DD Form 214; and VA cover 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 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 record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the discharge should be upgraded because the false claims and actions were not properly justified; a memorandum claims filing of a false travel voucher on 9 May 2001, but the applicant was not enlisted in 2001; the applicant could not file vouchers for events without the Chaplains’ consent; the items claimed stolen were not stolen by the applicant; there was no proof to justify having purchased the items off Craigslist website; none of the items worked, so the applicant pawned them; the items did not add up to the amount of $920; and the discharge for stealing was a discrimination. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contentions. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) a Memorandum, dated 28 September 2011, wherein the applicant was notified of the reasons for separation. In pertinent part, the applicant was notified of submitting a false travel voucher on or about 9 May 2011. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service as a Chaplain. 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 applicant’s AMHRR contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of in-service “Adjustment Disorder.” The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 18 August 2011, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. 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: Adjustment Disorder and Acute Reaction to Stress. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board’s Medical Advisor found that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder and Acute Reaction to Stress existed during 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 an Adjustment Disorder and Acute Reaction to Stress. However, these conditions do not mitigate the basis for separation. There is no natural sequela between either condition and larceny since the conditions do not interfere with one’s ability to distinguish between right and wrong. And there is no evidence that either condition contributed to applicant’s AWOL since both were diagnosed after applicant’s AWOL. (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 Adjustment Disorder and Acute Reaction to Stress outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – submitting a false travel voucher, AWOL, and stealing – for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the discharge should be upgraded because the false claims and actions were not properly justified; a memorandum claims filing of a false travel voucher on 9 May 2001, but the applicant was not enlisted in 2001; the applicant could not file vouchers for events without the Chaplains’ consent; the items claimed stolen were not stolen by the applicant; there was no proof to justify having purchased the items off Craigslist website; none of the items worked, so the applicant pawned them; and the items did not add up to the amount of $920; and the discharge for stealing was a discrimination. The Board considered this contention and found it non-persuasive during deliberations as there is insufficient evidence to support the applicant’s assertions. The applicant was notified of the pending separation, in part, for submitting a false voucher on 9 May 2011. On 29 November 2011, the administrative separation board convened, and the applicant appeared with counsel. The Board determined the three reasons listed in the notification memorandum were supported by a preponderance of the evidence. After weighing the totality of the evidence, the Board found insufficient mitigating factors such that would outweigh the applicant’s discharge, thus the discharge is proper and equitable. (2) The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service as a Chaplain. The Board considered this contention and voted to maintain the RE-code at 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 (3) The applicant’s AMHRR contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of in- service Adjustment Disorder. The Board concurred with the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor and determined that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder does not mitigate the discharge as the condition has no natural sequela with the nature of the applicant’s misconduct. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of submitting a false travel voucher, AWOL, and stealing. 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 AR20210002376 1