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 and an SPD code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the requested changes would profoundly impact of the applicant’s wellbeing and behavioral health. Approving the request to amend the separation code on the DD Form 214 to reflect “MBK” for completion of required active service; removing all languages from the “remarks” section of Block 18 referencing the discharge in lieu of elimination, and adding the two active-duty deployments to Iraq. The adverse information in the file directly resulted from the PTSD the applicant suffered from the 2006 Iraq deployment. When first deployed to Iraq, the applicant received a combat promotion and readily accepted the challenges of greater expectations and responsibilities. The applicant was repeatedly recognized for all the efforts of working hard to master the performance in the military as a young Soldier. During deployment, the applicant experienced anxiety from being on the road, witnessing firsthand the carnage of war, which was hard to put into words, and especially having difficulty seeing injured Iraqi women and children. Instead of dealing with the anxiety, the applicant ignored the feelings and pushed on. The applicant’s hope the Board will give liberal consideration to the requests, given the years served and the proven track record of the performance. Had the command been aware of the PTSD and the facts surrounding the incident leading to the separation, completion of required active service would have been the basis for the separation. Instead of sharing the facts with the command, the applicant simply lowered the head and accepted the command’s judgment. The applicant understands the current DD Form 214 accurately captures the separation according to AR 600-8-24; however, the basis should not have been used, given the applicant’s PTSD and the facts and circumstances surrounding the separation. Instead, the basis for the separation should reflect as completion of service. The applicant contends being illegally held past the required active service as retention beyond an ETS to process an administrative separation is not authorized unless the Soldier is pending court-martial charges. At the time of discharge, the applicant served ten months beyond the obligated service date. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 15 September 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) c. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Paragraph 4-2b and Paragraph 4-24a (1) / BNC / Honorable d. Date of Discharge: 23 September 2016 e. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 16 October 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, paragraphs 4-2b for misconduct, moral, or professional dereliction, and conduct unbecoming of an officer, due to the following reasons: The applicant engaged in an inappropriate relationship with the spouse of an Enlisted Soldier, while the applicant was married. On 6 October 2015, the applicant received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, for the engaging in an inappropriate relationship, cited above. Conduct unbecoming of an officer, specifically the conduct detailed above. (3) Legal Consultation Date: 22 October 2015 (4) Request for Discharge In Lieu of Elimination Date: 23 October 2015 (5) General Officer Show Cause Authority (GOSCA) Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 10 December 2015, the GOSCA recommended disapproval of the applicant’s request for resignation in lieu of officer elimination and recommended the applicant be involuntarily eliminated from service. / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (6) Department of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board: The Board reviewed and recommended approving the applicant’s request for resignation in lieu of elimination according to AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. (7) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 7 September 2016 / Honorable 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 15 November 2012 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment: / Education: 26 / Bachelor of Science Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-2 / 91A 5K 5P Maintenance/ Munition Materiel Officer / 7 years, 5 months, 2 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 7 February 2005 – 14 November 2005 / HD RA, 15 November 2005 – 22 June 2008 / HD RA, 23 June 2008 – 14 November 2012 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (16 August 2006 – 7 August 2007; 2 July 2009 – 3 July 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-4; AAM-6, MUC, ASUA, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, NCOPDR-3, ASR, OSR-2 g. Performance Ratings: 31 August 2012 – 31 July 2014 / Highly Qualified 31 July 2014 – 1 June 2015 / Highly Qualified 2 June 2015 – 1 May 2016 / Not Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand with an Article 15-6 Investigation and investigative documents, dated 19 August 2015, reflect the applicant knowingly had an inappropriate relationship with an enlisted Soldier’s spouse while the applicant was married and serving as a platoon leader, between 20 August 2014 and 29 September 2014. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 9 December 2015, reflects an “AXIS 1” diagnosis of an “Anxiety Disorder NOS.” The Report indicated the applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant’s provided a copy of a VA disability rating, dated 24 September 2016, reflecting the applicant was rated 70 percent disability for TBD with PTSD (also claimed as loss of consciousness and anxiety/depression/panic attacks/sleep issues). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; self-authored correction of erroneous records memorandum with separation memoranda; DD Form 214; Orders for AD; deployment orders; ORB; and self-authored supplemental ADRB request memorandum with “as” numbered enclosures 1 through 19. 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 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: Submit a resignation in lieu of elimination; request a discharge in lieu of elimination; and, 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 and an SPD code 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 exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends the SPD code should be changed. SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. SPD Codes are controlled by OSD and then implemented in Army policy AR 635-5-1 to track types of separations. The SPD code specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b and 4-24a (1), is “BNC.” The applicant contends removing all languages referencing discharge in lieu of elimination from the DD Form 214, and adding two active-duty deployments to Iraq, would have a profound impact on the applicant’s mental wellbeing. The applicant’s requested changes to the DD Form 214 do 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 applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. The applicant provided several medical documents indicating a diagnosis of TBD with PTSD (also claimed as loss of consciousness and anxiety/depression/panic attacks/sleep issues). The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 9 December 2015, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE indicating a diagnosis of “Anxiety Disorder NOS” was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour where the applicant received a combat promotion, and while readily accepting the challenges of greater expectations and responsibilities, the applicant was repeatedly recognized for all the efforts of working hard and mastering the performance in the military as a young Soldier. The applicant contends being illegally held past the required active service as retention beyond an ETS to process an administrative separation is not authorized unless the Soldier is pending court-martial charges, and at the time of discharge, the applicant served ten months beyond the obligated service date. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 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: TBI, PTSD, Anxiety, and Major Depressive 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 Anxiety and ADHD, and is service connected by the VA for TBI. Service connection establishes that TBI also existed during military service. The VA has also diagnosed applicant with PTSD and Major Depressive 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 there is no natural sequelae between any of applicant’s BH conditions, to include TBI and PTSD, and having an inappropriate relationship. (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 TBI, PTSD, Anxiety, and Major Depressive Disorder outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – an inappropriate relationship with the spouse of an enlisted Soldier – for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant’s narrative reason for discharge is proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct of having an inappropriate relationship with the spouse of an enlisted Soldier is unacceptable conduct by a commisioned officer. (2) The applicant contends the SPD code should be changed. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant received the appropriate SPD code for the discharge specified by AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b and 4-2a (1) is “BNC.” Therefore, no change is warranted. (3) The applicant contends removing all languages referencing discharge in lieu of elimination from the DD Form 214, and adding two active-duty deployments to Iraq, would have a profound impact on the applicant’s mental wellbeing. The Board considered this contention and noted that this action is a procedural step which is part of a normal process, when an alternative forum is chosen. In this case, the charges were dismissed because the applicant requested to be discharged under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b, resignation in lieu of elimination and the convening authority approved that request. There was no evidence presented to the Board to convince the Board of any mitigating circumstances. The Board determined that the applicant’s requested change of adding two active-duty deployments to Iraq 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. (4) The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. The ADRB is not bound by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decisions. There is no law or regulation which requires that an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the Board determination that there was a condition or experience that existed during the applicant’s time in service. The Board must also articulate the nexus between that condition or experience and the basis for separation. Then, the Board must determine that the condition or experience outweighed the basis for separation. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former service member is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the ARBA when determining a member’s discharge characterization. In this case, the Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s PTSD does not mitigate or excuse applicant’s misconduct of having an inappropriate relationship with the spouse of an enlisted Soldier. Thus, the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (5) 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 with the spouse of an enlisted Soldier, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (6) The applicant contends being illegally held past the required active service as retention beyond an ETS to process an administrative separation is not authorized. The Board voted after considering the contention and finding no evidence of the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. In this case, the Board determined the applicant’s discharge is proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct of having an inappropriate relationship with the spouse of an enlisted Soldier is not mitigated or excused by any of applicant’s stated BH conditions. 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. The applicant’s misconduct of having an inappropriate relationship with the spouse of an enlisted Soldier is unacceptable conduct by a commisioned officer IAW with AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b and 4-2a and a violation of the UCMJ. (3) The RE code will not change, As there is no RE-code listed on the applicant’s discharge paperwork, due to being in the Army 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 AR20210002470 1