1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: 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 and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in over 15 years of exemplary service. An undiagnosed Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) medical condition at the time of misconduct, and a panel comprised of biased members presided over the Board of Inquiry hearing. The request to remove a board member, LTC B. W. S., due to supposition of prejudice was denied. LTC S. served as the rear detachment Brigade Commander, which included CPT J. N. as an interim Adjutant to the Brigade Command Team. CPT J. N., the spouse of the individual the applicant had the affair with, was also the government's primary witness and who initiated the investigation resulting in separation. LTC S. knowing of the affair and having an ongoing command relationship with CPT J. N. had a conflict of interest and the inability to remain unbiased, and a negative influence on the other board members. The applicant was diagnosed with Combat-Related Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in early 2015 and the therapist attributed the misconduct directly to the PTSD diagnosis. The applicant states the undiagnosed combat- related mental health condition cost a career and marriage. Since the discharge, the applicant has received a 50 percent Combat-Related PTSD Disability rating from Veterans Affairs (VA). The applicant contends family issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The applicant attended marriage counseling with the (now ex) spouse, after six years of infertility treatments and multiple miscarriages in attempts to conceive a child. The applicant is now engaged in a committed relationship, and a parent. The applicant contends obtaining a Bachelor's in Business Administration, currently enrolled in a Professional Master's in Business Administration (PMBA) program. Additionally, the applicant is the PMBA chair on Belmont's Massey Graduate School of Business Graduate Council and a board member of the Nashville Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP). b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 16 March 2023, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length, quality of service, to include combat service, prior HD, post service conduct, and the length of time since the discharge, outweighing the basis for applicant's separation. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to Honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason/SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 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 / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 12 October 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 1 July 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(5), 4-2b(8), and 4-2c(1), for committing acts of personal misconduct, for conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, and receiving punishment under Article 15, UCMJ which was filed in the applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record. Between 1 September 2014 and 28 April 2015, the applicant wrongfully and dishonorably engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship with 1LT C. N., a married individual not the applicant's spouse, which conduct was to the disgrace of the Armed Forces and unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman; and wrongfully had sexual intercourse with 1LT C. N. a married individual not the applicant's spouse, such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline of the Armed Forces (Encl 1). On 24 June 2015, a General Officer Article 15 was filed in the applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record for the aforementioned offenses. (3) Board of Inquiry (BOI): On 12 August 2015, the GOSCA directed a BOI be convened. On 1 September 2015, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the BOI and appeared before the BOI. On 25 September 2015, the BOI recommended the applicant be separated from the service with a General, Under Honorable Conditions characterization of service. (4) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 2 November 2015, the GOSCA recommended disapproval of the applicant's request for retention and recommended the applicant be involuntarily eliminated from service. / General (Under Honorable Conditions). (5) DA Board of Review for Eliminations: On 22 September 2016, the Army Board of Review for Eliminations considered the GOSCA's request to involuntary separate the applicant for substandard performance in accordance with AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b and derogatory information in accordance with AR 600-8-24, para 4-2c. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 19 September 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 24 January 2007 / 6 years (OAD) b. Age at Appointment: / Education: 23 / some college c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: CW3 / 890A0, Ammunition Technician / 15 years, 3 months, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 21 June 2001 - 23 January 2007 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Iraq (25 August 2007 - 9 November 2008); Afghanistan (14 March 2010 - 27 February 2011; 21 May 2013 - 15 February 2014); Liberia (12 November 2014 - 4 January 2015) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-4CS, BSM-2, MSM, ARCOM-5, AAM-5, MUC-3, ASUA, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, AFSM, ICM-CS, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-3, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: 13 April 2007 - 5 March 2010 / Best Qualified 6 March 2010 - 23 February 2012 / Best Qualified 24 February 2012 - 23 February 2013 / Best Qualified 24 February 2013 - 23 February 2014 / Best Qualified 23 February 2014 - 22 February 2015 / Most Qualified 23 February 2015 - 22 February 2016 / Not Qualified (Referred) h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 18 June 2015, for wrongfully and dishonorably engage in an inappropriate sexual relationship and having sexual intercourse with a commissioned officer (between 1 September 2014 and 28 April 2015). The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $1,500 pay per month for two months. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 2 July 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. Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers, dated 25 September 2015, reflects the investigating officer found: Per paragraphs 4-2b(5),4-2b(8), and 4-2c(1), Army Regulation 600-8-24, found by a preponderance of the evidence the applicant: for wrongfully and dishonorably engage in an appropriate sexual relationship and sexual intercourse with 1LT C. N., a married individual not the applicant's spouse. This conduct does constitute personal misconduct, in accordance with AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b(5). This conduct does constitute conduct unbecoming an officer in accordance with AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b(8). Did not receive punishment under Article 15, UCMJ. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 24 July 2015, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: PTSD, adjustment disorder, Anxiety, and depression. The applicant provided a copy of a VA disability rating decision, dated 14 April 2017, reflecting the applicant was rated 50 percent disability for PTSD. The applicant provided a letter from a Senior Licensed Psychological Examiner, HSP, dated 23 June 2015, reflecting the applicant's diagnoses: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traits of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Legal Brief with all listed enclosures A through N; Senior Licensed Psychological Examiner Letter; VA Rating letter; self-authored statement. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends obtaining a Bachelor's in Business Administration, currently enrolled in a Professional Master's in Business Administration (PMBA) program. Additionally, the applicant is the PMBA chair on Belmont's Massey Graduate School of Business Graduate Council and a board member of the Nashville Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP). 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: 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. 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 to be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b and 4-24a, 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 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, is "BNC." The applicant contends suffering from undiagnosed PTSD at the time of misconduct, and a panel comprised of biased members presided over the Board of Inquiry hearing. The applicant provided a letter from a Senior Licensed Psychological Examiner, HSP, reflecting the applicant's diagnoses: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traits of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. The applicant provided a copy of a VA disability rating decision, dated 14 April 2017, reflecting the applicant was rated 50 percent disability for PTSD. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant ever sought assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Army Regulation 600-8-24, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends personal problems affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant ever sought assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The applicant contends obtaining a Bachelor's in Business Administration, currently enrolled in a Professional Master's in Business Administration (PMBA) program. Additionally, the applicant is the PMBA chair on Belmont's Massey Graduate School of Business Graduate Council and a board member of the Nashville Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP). The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses/experiences: PTSD and Adjustment Disorder. (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 PTSD existed during the applicant's 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's Adjustment Disorder and PTSD do not mitigate the applicant's adultery offense as there is no natural sequela between PTSD and inappropriate sexual relationship with a married officer since these conditions do not interfere with the ability to distinguish between right and wrong and act in accordance with the right. 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 and Adjustment Disorder outweighed the applicant's medically unmitigated offense - inappropriate sexual relationship with a married 1LT. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant requests an honorable characterization of service based on the totality of the applicant's service. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant's 15 years of service, including the length and quality of the applicant's service, the applicant's combat and prior period of service warranting an Honorable discharge, and the applicant's post-service accomplishment outweighed the applicant's discharge. (2) 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, AR 600- 8-24. 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. The Board found insufficient factors to deviate from the regulation. (3) The applicant contends the SPD code should be changed. The Board considered this contention and determined that a SPD code change is not warranted as there is insufficient evidence in the applicant's official record or provided by the applicant to support deviating from the SPD code specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b is BNC. (4) The applicant contends suffering from undiagnosed PTSD at the time of misconduct, and a panel comprised of biased members presided over the Board of Inquiry hearing. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, post service conduct, and the length of time since the discharge outweighing the discharge. (5) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, post service conduct, and the length of time since the discharge outweighing the discharge. (6) The applicant contends personal problems affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being granted based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, post service conduct, and the length of time since the discharge outweighing the discharge. (7) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, and accordingly voted to upgrade the applicant's characterization of service based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, post service conduct, and the length of time since the discharge outweighing the discharge. (8) The applicant contends obtaining a Bachelor's in Business Administration, currently enrolled in a Professional Master's in Business Administration (PMBA) program. The Board considered this contention and ultimately voted to upgrade the characterization of service to Honorable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, post service conduct, and the length of time since the discharge outweighing the discharge. c. The Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, post service conduct, and the length of time since the discharge, outweighing the applicant's discharge. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service and prior period of Honorable service, post service conduct, and the length of time since the discharge, outweighing the applicant's basis for applicant's separation - inappropriate sexual relationship with a married 1LT. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (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. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable 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 AR20210002480 1