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 under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to 
honorable. 

The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge was unfair and should be based 
on the years of dedicated and honorable service before the investigation. The applicant states 
counsel coerced the applicant to accept a Chapter 10; the applicant wanted to go through with 
the court-martial process, but the applicant’s counsel did not after a year of investigation. The 
applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits and career 
opportunities with the federal government because of current the discharge, which is hindering 
the applicant from caring for the family. The applicant desires to rejoin the military service. The 
applicant’s foreign service time is incorrect, it should read 3 years, 5 months, and 22 days; the 
applicant had two deployments, about nine months.

   b.	Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 2 March 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial /        
AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions

   b.	Date of Discharge: 28 March 2017

   c.	Separation Facts: 

       (1)	Date and Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): On 24 August 2016, 
the applicant was charged with: 

	Charge I: Violating Article 107, UCMJ, Specification: On 15 March 2016, for with intent to 
deceive making a totally false statement to Special Agent T. V. N. 

	Charge II: Violating Article 92, UCMJ, Specification: On 19 December 2015, for wrongfully 
engaging in an intimate and sexual relationship with a junior enlisted Soldier.

	Charge III: Violating Article 120, UCMJ:

		Specification 1: On 19 December 2015, for engaging in sexual contact by touching the 
breasts, groin, and genitalia of junior enlisted Soldier with hands and touching the breasts of 
enlisted Soldier with mouth, by causing bodily harm to Soldier by an offensive touching.

		Specification 2: On 19 December 2015, for committing a sexual act upon an enlisted 
Soldier by penetrating junior enlisted Soldier vulva with tongue and fingers, by causing bodily 
harm, to wit an offensive touching.

	Charge IV: Violating Article 128, UCMJ, Specification: On 19 December 2015, for unlawfully 
touching junior enlisted Soldier, on waist, chest, and shoulders with hands.

       (2)	Legal Consultation Date: 15 March 2017

       (3)	Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant’s request for discharge under the 
provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. 

       (4)	Recommended Characterization: NIF

       (5)	Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 20 March 2017 / Under Other Than 
Honorable Conditions

4.	SERVICE DETAILS:

   a.	Date / Period of Enlistment: 17 June 2014 / 3 years

   b.	Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 28 / Associate’s Degree / 97

   c.	Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 25B20, IT Specialist / 8 years,     
6 months, 18 days

   d.	Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 11 September 2008 – 16 June 2014 / HD

   e.	Overseas Service / Combat Service: Japan, SWA / Afghanistan (18 January 2010 –     
4 September 2010); Kuwait (24 July 2013 – 14 April 2014)

   f.	Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, PH, ARCOM-3, AAM-3, VUA, AGCM-2, NDSM, 
GWOTEM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-2, NATOMDL, CAB

   g.	Performance Ratings: 1 December 2013 – 17 November 2014 / Among The Best
                           18 November 2014 – 18 January 2016 / Highly Qualified
                           19 January 2016 – 18 January 2017 / Highly Qualified

   h.	Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge sheet as described in previous
paragraph 3c.

Orders 083-0101, dated 24 March 2017, reflect the applicant was to be reassigned to the U.S. 
Army Transition Point and discharged on 28 March 2017 from the Regular Army.

The applicant’s Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 29 March 2017, reflects the applicant was 
flagged for Adverse Action (AA), effective 24 August 2016; was ineligible for reenlistment due to 
Adverse Action Flag (9B). The Assignment Eligibility Availability code reflects the applicant was 
temporarily ineligible for reassignments due to Soldiers eligible for PCS reassignment, subject 
to normal PCS TOS restrictions. There is no termination date. The applicant was reduced from 
E-5 to E-1 effective 20 March 2017.

   i.	Lost Time / Mode of Return: None

   j.	Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None

5.	APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Two DD Forms 293; six third-party letters; Veterans Affairs 
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)	Paragraph 3-7c states Under other-than-honorable-conditions discharge is an 
administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be 
issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based 
on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a 
significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. 

       (5)	Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense 
or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a 
request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request 
may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the 
individual’s admission of guilt.   

   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 “KFS” as 
the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of 
Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. 

   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-4 Applies to: Person separated from last 
period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed 
bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation, or separated for any reason (except length of 
service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for 
enlistment. 

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 evidence of Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) confirms the applicant was 
charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive 
discharge. The applicant, in consultation with legal counsel, voluntarily requested, in writing, a 
discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. In 
this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense, and 
indicated an understanding an under other than honorable conditions discharge could be 
received, and the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veterans’ benefits. 
The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and 
appropriate under the regulatory guidance. 

The applicant contends not being properly informed by appointed counsel of rights referring to 
accepting an UOTH discharge; and leadership gave inaccurate information about the potential 
consequences the applicant may encounter in civilian life of accepting an UOTH. The AMHRR 
includes a Memorandum thru, Subject: Request for Discharge In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, 
15 March 2017, which reflects the applicant agreed to waive rights in a subsequent AR 635-200, 
Chapter 10, In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. The applicant understood the separation authority 
had the right to approve an under other than honorable characterization of service for discharge. 
The understanding of rights was authenticated with the applicant’s signature, dated 15 March 
2017. The 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 contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. Eligibility for 
veteran’s benefits does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. 
Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for 
further assistance.

The applicant contends DD Form 214 needs corrected to reflect the correct foreign service time. 
The applicant’s request does not fall within this board’s purview. The applicant may apply to the 
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 
regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans’ Service 
Organization.

The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all 
recognize the applicant’s good conduct before and after leaving the Army. 

The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. Soldiers processed for separation are 
assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on 
Army Regulation 601-210, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of “4.” An RE 
code of “4” cannot be waived, and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. 

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: PTSD, Acute 
Stress Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, TBI, and Depression. 				

       (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 PTSD, Acute Stress 
Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, TBI, and Depression. The VA has also service 
connected his Anxiety. 										

       (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 has multiple 
potentially mitigating BH conditions to include in service diagnoses of PTSD, Acute Stress 
Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, TBI, and Depression. The VA has also service 
connected his Anxiety. However, there is no natural sequela between any of BH conditions and 
perpetrating inappropriate sexual contact or making false official statements. Therefore, there is 
no medical mitigation. 									

       (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 PTSD, Acute Stress 
Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, TBI, and Depression outweighed the basis for 
applicant’s separation – false official statement, sex with subordinate, wrongful sexual contact, 
and sexual assault – for the aforementioned reason

   b.	Response to Contention(s): 

       (1)	The applicant contends not being properly informed by appointed counsel of rights 
referring to accepting an UOTH discharge; and leadership gave inaccurate information about 
the potential consequences the applicant may encounter in civilian life of accepting an UOTH. 
The Board considered this contention and noted that the AMHRR includes a Memorandum thru, 
Subject: Request for Discharge In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, 15 March 2017, which reflects 
the applicant agreed to waive rights in a subsequent AR 635-200, Chapter 10, In Lieu of Trial by 
Court-Martial. The Board considered this contention and found insufficient evidence in the 
AMHRR, and in the evidence provided by the applicant, of any arbitrary or capricious action 
taken by Command such that rebuts the presumption of government regularity. Accordingly, the 
Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable.

       (2)	The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. 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 the nature 
and severity of the misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that 
meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation.

       (3)	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.

       (4)	The applicant contends DD Form 214 need corrected to reflect the right foreign 
service time. The Board determined that the applicant’s requested change to the DD Form 214 
does not fall within the purview of the ADRB. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for 
Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using a DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD 
Form 149 may be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization.

       (5)	The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. The Board considered this 
contention and determined that Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes 
based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 601-210, 
the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of “4.” An RE code of “4” cannot be 
waived, and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. The applicant may apply to the 
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 
regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans’ Service 
Organization.

   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 PTSD, Acute Stress 
Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, TBI, and Depression outweighed the basis for 
applicant’s separation – false official statement, sex with subordinate, wrongful sexual contact, 
and sexual assault.  The Board further considered the applicant’s contentions and found there is 
insufficient evidence of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by Command resulting in any 
inequity or impropriety. 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 UOTHC was 
proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service 
warranted for an upgrade to HD. 

       (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
AR20210002440
1