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. The applicant seeks relief through counsel contending, in effect, an Adjustment Disorder as well as a long history of exceptionally meritorious service outweigh the misconduct which led to the discharge. When the applicant was first diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder, the military medical provider told the applicant it would be difficult adjusting to major life changes and stressors. The applicant’s relationship with the ROTC cadet, while a regrettable error, was brief and entirely consensual. It should not be a barrier to recognizing the entirety of military service as worthy of an honorable discharge. There is not a single additional thing the applicant could have done over the past seven years to further demonstrate rehabilitation. The applicant is a devoted fiancé and parent who wants nothing more than to help others. For these and the other reasons stated above, granting the requested relief is the right thing to do. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 9 February 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: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2B and 4-24A (1) / BNC / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 3 August 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 12 September 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, due to misconduct for the following reasons: During the summer of 2103, had an inappropriate relationship with Cadet X., a Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) Cadet participating in the Cadet Troop Leader Training (CTLT). Instead of mentoring and educating Cadet X., about the Army, the applicant exploited the position as the commander to engage in a romantic relationship with Cadet X. The applicant then continued to pursue a personal and unprofessional relationship with Cadet X., after the conclusion of CTLT through emails. Cadet X., told the applicant “one of the married NCOs engaged in sexual activities with me” and numerous NCOs were hitting on me,” the applicant failed to inform the chain of command of these allegations or take any actions to determine if the allegations were true. Instead, the applicant blatantly condones this kind of misconduct by own actions. The applicant received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand for the above-mentioned misconduct, which was filed in the applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record on 13 August 2014. Conduct unbecoming of an Officer as indicated in the above misconduct. (3) Legal Consultation Date: On 10 February 2015, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than an honorable discharge. (4) Board of Inquiry (BOI): Memorandum For Commanding General U.S. Army Human Resources Command dated 8 July 2015, reflects on 27 January 2015, a Board of Inquiry recommended the applicant be involuntarily eliminated from the United States Army based on misconduct and moral or professional dereliction, with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service. (5) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 13 April 2015, the GOSCA recommended disapproval of the applicant’s Resignation in Lieu of Elimination and recommended the applicant be involuntarily eliminated from service. / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (6) DA Board of Review for Eliminations: On 8 July 2015, the Army Board of Review for Eliminations considered the GOSCA’s request to involuntary separate the applicant for unacceptable conduct in accordance with AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b. (7) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 8 July 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 27 December 2007 / 3 years / 3-year ADSO agreement dated, 21 July 2008 / Documents extending the applicant term of service is not available for review. b. Age at Appointment: / Education: 30 / Bachelor’s Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-4 / 38A 5Y 5S, Civil Affairs / 14 years, 2 months, 4 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAF, 30 May 2001 – 26 December 2007 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Afghanistan (8 July 2010 – 7 March 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, BSM, JSCM, ARCOM-V, ARCOM, USAFCM, NATOMDL, AFAM-2, USAFOUA -4, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, KDSM, HSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR-3, USAFLSAR-2, USAFESR-GF, USAFTR, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 17 June 2009 – 31 July 2011 / Best Qualified 1 August 2011 – 31 January 2014 / Best Qualified 1 February 2014 – 1 July 2014 / Not Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand dated 9 July 2014, reflects, the applicant was reprimanded for engaging in an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate and for failing to prevent the misconduct of NCOs. The applicant provided a copy of a Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 26 March 2015, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; could appreciate the difference between right and wrong; and met medical retention requirements. The applicant had been screened for PTSD and mTBI with negative results. The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. The command was advised to consider the influence of these conditions. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy a medical record discharge summary dated 7 July 2003, which reflect a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder. The applicant provided a copy of a VA Rating decision dated 22 January 2016, which reflects, an evaluation of 50 percent for a service connection for adjustment disorder, insomnia, and major depressive disorder. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Two lawyer briefs; self-authored statement; Attachments A through LL and enclosures one through 20. 6. Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant has earned a Master of Business Administration from a top 20 business school and secured and maintained a job at Cisco, an information technology company which is ranked number 63 on the Fortune 500 list. 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) Paragraph 1-23b, states an officer will normally receive a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service when the officer’s military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A separation under general (under honorable conditions) normally appropriate when an officer: Submits an unqualified resignation; Separated based on misconduct; discharged for physical disability resulting from intentional misconduct or neglect; and, for final revocation of a security clearance. (4) Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty. (5) Paragraph 4-2b, prescribes for the elimination of an officer for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interests of national security. (6) 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 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 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 general (under 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 through counsel contends the Board should liberally consider mental health condition which reasonably existed during service as mitigating misconduct and the service member’s discharge. The applicant’s mental health conditions and acute life circumstance in 2013 more than explain the applicant’s behavior. A Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 26 March 2015, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; could appreciate the difference between right and wrong; and met medical retention requirements. The applicant had been screened for PTSD and mTBI with negative results. The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. The command was advised to consider the influence of these conditions. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant provided a copy of a VA Rating decision dated 19 January 2016, which reflects, an evaluation of 50 percent for a service connection for adjustment disorder, insomnia, and major depressive disorder. The applicant provided a copy a medical record discharge summary dated 7 July 2003, which reflect a diagnosis of an Adjustment Disorder. The applicant through counsel contends relief is required because the entire discharge is based on legal error. While the applicant’s conduct may appear to some to be immoral or not ideal, it was neither prohibited nor did it violate customs of the service. Therefore, the entire discharge is legally impermissible, and the only proper relief is a full grant of all requested relief. AR 600-20 dated 6 November 2014, paragraph 4-14, reflects relationships between Soldiers of different grades does not mention cadets. However, all relationships between Soldiers of different grade are prohibited if they compromise, or appear to compromise, the integrity of supervisory authority or the chain of command. Cause actual or perceived partiality or unfairness. Involve, or appear to involve, the improper use of grade or position for personal gain. Are perceived to be, exploitative or coercive in nature. Create an actual or clearly predictable adverse impact on discipline, authority, morale, or the ability of the command to accomplish its mission. 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 obtaining a Master of Business Administration from a top 20 business school and secured and maintained a job at Cisco, an information technology company which is ranked number 63 on the Fortune 500 list. 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. The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant’s good conduct while in and after leaving the Army. 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 found that the applicant has the following potentially mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Chronic Adjustment Disorder. (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 an Adjustment Disorder and is service connected by the VA for Chronic Adjustment Disorder. (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 applicant is service connected by the VA for Chronic Adjustment Disorder. However, there is no natural sequelae between an Adjustment Disorder and having an inappropriate relationship or failing to inform the chain of command of allegations of misconduct. Therefore, there is no medical mitigation. (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 chronic adjustment disorder outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – having an inappropriate relationship and failing to inform the chain of command of misconduct allegations from a cadet – for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The board considered this contention and determined the applicant’s narrative reason for discharge is appropriate. Ultimately, the applicant was properly and equitably discharged as there are no mitigating experiences or conditions for applicant having an inappropriate relationship or failing to inform the chain of command of allegations of misconduct. (2) The applicant through counsel contends the board should liberally consider a mental health condition which reasonably existed during service as mitigating misconduct and the service member’s discharge, and that the applicant’s mental health conditions and acute life circumstance in 2013 more than explain the applicant’s behavior. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant does not have any BH conditions or experiences that mitigate or excuse the applicant’s misconduct of having an inappropriate relationship or failing to inform the chain of command of allegations of misconduct. (3) The applicant, through counsel, contends relief is required because the entire discharge is based on legal error, and that while the applicant’s conduct may appear to some to be immoral or not ideal, it was neither prohibited nor did it violate customs of the service. Therefore, the entire discharge is legally impermissible, and the only proper relief is a full grant of all requested relief. The Board considered this contention and determined AR 600-20 dated 6 November 2014, paragraph 4-14, reflects relationships between Soldiers of different grades does not mention cadets. However, all relationships between Soldiers of different grade are prohibited if they compromise, or appear to compromise, the integrity of supervisory authority or the chain of command, cause actual or perceived partiality or unfairness, involve, or appear to involve, the improper use of grade or position for personal gain, are perceived to be exploitative or coercive in nature, create an actual or clearly predictable adverse impact on discipline, authority, morale, or the ability of the command to accomplish its mission. Thus, the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (4) 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 having an inappropriate relationship and failing to inform the chain of command of misconduct allegations from a cadet, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (5) The applicant contends obtaining a Master of Business Administration from a top 20 business school and secured and maintained a job at Cisco, an information technology company which is ranked number 63 on the Fortune 500 list. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. 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. In this case, the Board considered this contention and determined that this contention alone does not outweigh the discharge or warrant an upgrade. The applicant was properly and equitably discharged. 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 Chronic Adjustment Disorder did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of having an inappropriate relationship and failing to inform the chain of command of misconduct allegations from a cadet. 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 Board determined that the discharge is proper and equitable and no discharge upgrade is warranted as the applicant’s Misconduct fell below that level of satisfactory service warranting a General Discharge or meritorious service warranting an Honorable Discharge. (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 AR20210002451 1