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 honorable. The applicant requests a narrative reason change and a reentry eligibility (RE) code change, and a new DD Form 215 annotating Combat Action Badge award. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge was unfair at the time, and it is unfair now. The discharge no longer serves a purpose. Counsel, on behalf of the applicant, contends the applicant was unjustly and erroneously discharged. The applicant, in addition to an upgrade and a change to the RE Code, should also receive a Combat Action Badge and have it annotated on a DD Form 215. The applicant contends the underlying basis of the discharge was procedurally defective, the adverse action and the discharge were unfair and inequitable, and it has served its purpose. Preponderance of evidence shows an error and injustice exists; therefore, any negative documents should be set aside in their entirety. There is no valid equitable purpose for leaving the discharge in place. The applicant requests for the utmost scrutiny and liberal consideration of the PTSD diagnosis. Consideration should be given to the entirety of the applicant's military career based on the personnel and medical records, and the compelling personal affidavit. The applicant has also sought fixing and living a responsible life since the involuntary discharge. The discharge code has additionally crippled the ability to find meaningful employment. The applicant has turned life around. All other aspects of the applicant's career performance were spectacular by serving proudly as a deployed Platoon Leader, Brigade Adjutant, and the Battalion S1. The applicant achieved Airborne, Air Assault, and Pathfinder Badges. The applicant's career was outstanding, aside from the unresolved mental health issues resulting in two Article 15 actions, which were directly related to personal indiscretions. Granting the requested relief will have a significant impact on the applicant's ability to receive proper benefits and recognition. The counsel further details the contentions in an allied legal brief provided with the application. The applicant also further details the circumstances and events surrounding the discharge, and the contentions in an affidavit provided with the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 8 September 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, blocks 25 and 27, contain erroneous entries. The Board directed the following administrative corrections and reissue of the applicant's DD Form 214, as approved by the separation authority: a. block 25, separation authority changed to AR 15-180 b. Block 26, separation code changed to KFF c. block 27, reentry code changed to NA 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: Secretarial Authority / AR 635-200, Para 5-3 / JFF / RE-1 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 12 December 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 8 April 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(4), 4-2b(5), 4-2b(8), and 4-2c(1), for intentional omission or misstatement of facts in an official statement for the purpose of misrepresentation, misconduct, moral, or professional dereliction, conduct unbecoming of an officer, and for receiving punishment under Article 15 on 17 May 2013, for the following offenses: Between 1 February 2013 and 13 April 2013, the applicant wrongfully and dishonorably engaged in a prohibited and adulterous relationship with a subordinate noncommissioned officer (NCO) and on 17 April 2013, the applicant provided a false official statement to an investigating officer concerning the relationship with the NCO. (3) Legal Consultation Date: On 23 March 2016, the applicant requested resignation in lieu of elimination (RILOE) conditioned upon receiving a characterization of no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions). (4) General Officer Show Cause Authority (GOSCA) Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 29 March 2016, the GOSCA recommended approval of the request for RILOE with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. (5) 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 4-2a with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 21 November 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 9 September 2015 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / Bachelor of Science Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-2 / 42B 5Q 5P, Human Resource Officer / 8 years, 1 day d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 12 December 2008 - 5 May 2009 / NA ADT, 6 May 2009 - 11 September 2009 / HD ARNG, 12 September 2009 - 9 August 2012 / HD USAR/RA APPT, 10 August 2012 - 8 September 2012 / NA Ordered to a 3-year AD, 9 September 2012 - 8 September 2015 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (1 July 2012 - 27 March 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM, AAM, MUC, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: 7 September 2012 - 7 December 2013 / Best Qualified 8 December 2013 - 7 December 2014 / Highly Qualified 7 December 2014 - 6 December 2015 / Not Qualified 8 December 2015 - 22 April 2016 / Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers, and an Informal AR 15-6 Investigation Findings and Recommendations memorandum, dated 30 April 2013, reflect the investigating officer found the applicant, while legally married, engaged in an inappropriate relationship and shared living accommodations (fraternization) with SSG C. R. B., but there was insufficient evidence to conclude the applicant, without a need to know, assessed SPC M. C. H. personnel records. The IO recommended nonjudicial punishment for both the applicant and SSG C. R. B. for the inappropriate relationship and fraternization (sharing living accommodations), and unit training on AR 340-21, addressing when and under what conditions HR professionals may access Soldier records. GO Article 15, dated 13 May 2013, for violating a lawful general regulation by engaging in a relationship with SSG C. R. B., which created a clearly predictable adverse impact on discipline, authority and morale, between 1 February 2013 and 1 April 2013; for wrongfully and dishonorably engaging in an unlawful conduct with SSG C. R .B, an NCO, by engaging in an intimate relationship between 1 February 2013 and 1 April 2013; and on 17 April 2013, for wrongfully and dishonorably making a false official statement to an investigating officer when the applicant denied the intimate relationship with SSG C. R. B. The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $1,809 pay per month for two months, arrest in quarters for 30 days (suspended), and a written reprimand. On 8 April 2015, the GCMCA, MG G. J. V. determining the punishment of forfeiture of $1,809 pay per month for two months being improperly imposed, set aside the forfeiture, and directed the Defense Finance and Accounting Service repay the officer in the amount of $3,618. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 10 June 2015, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. GO Article 15, dated 18 June 2015, for wrongfully and dishonorably engaging in an inappropriate sexual relationship with CW3 R. C., who was married, not the spouse (between 1 September 2014 and 28 April 2015), and for wrongfully having sexual intercourse with CW3 R. C., who was married, not the spouse (between 1 September 2014 and 28 April 2015). The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $2,339 pay per month for two months (suspended). A Developmental Counseling Form for acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant submitted with the application, copies of medical Progress Notes, dated between December 2015 and May 2016, which reflect the applicant being diagnosed with PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 with Attorney Brief and self-authored statement; AR20170009810 Decision Documents and CRD; medical Progress Notes; Treatment Summary; four third-party letters; and redacted CID Report. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has been employed as a Legal Assistant with a Law Firm and is a certified and performs Notary Public duties. 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) Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 5-3 (Chapter 15 current regulation) provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army's best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary's approved designee as announced in updated memorandums. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. e. 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-1 Applies to: Person completing his or her term of active service who is considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. Eligibility: Qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. 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, a reentry eligibility (RE) code change, and a DD Form 215 annotating Combat Action Badge award. 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 and the reentry eligibility (RE) code need to be changed. The applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) containing a new DD Form 214, reflects the following changes: the narrative reason for separation to "Secretarial Authority" in block 28; the authority to "AR 635-200, Paragraph 5-3" in block 25; and the SPD code to "JFF" in block 26. The new DD Form 214 contains inapplicable or erroneous entries, which are not applicable to the applicant's discharge status as an officer. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 5-3 (Chapter 15 current regulation) provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army's best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary's approved designee as announced in updated memorandums. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and refers to AR 601-210, which determines reentry eligibility and provides regulatory guidance on reentry codes. AR 601-210 provides detailed instructions for data required in each block of the DD Form 214 and at paragraph 5-6aa (Rules for completing the DD Form 214) for "Block 27: Reentry Code," it stipulates reentry codes are not applicable to officers. Therefore, the applicant discharged in an officer status, would have an "NA" entered in Block 27 of DD Form 214. The applicant contends a Combat Action Badge (CAB) should have been awarded and the applicant has a narrative for the award. The applicant's request for award of a CAB and its annotation on a DD Form 215 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 applicant contends the underlying basis for the discharge was erroneous, inequitable, and unjust and it is no longer serving its purpose because it was procedurally defective, and the adverse action was unfair. Therefore, any negative documents should be set aside in their entirety. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the utmost scrutiny and liberal consideration for the PTSD diagnosis should be given, and aside from the unresolved mental health issues resulting in two Article 15 actions, they were also directly related to personal indiscretions. The applicant provided medical documents reflecting a diagnosis of PTSD. The AMHRR also shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 10 June 2015, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends turning the life around and living a responsible life since the discharge, including being employed with a Law Firm and performing Notary Public duties. 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 applicant contends the discharge crippled the ability to find meaningful employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. The applicant contends having served proudly and spectacularly as a deployed Platoon Leader, Brigade Adjutant, and the Battalion S1, and achieving Airborne, Air Assault, and Pathfinder Badges. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The applicant contends granting the requested relief would have a significant impact on the applicant's ability to receive proper benefits and recognition. Eligibility for veterans' benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill 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 third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's character and performance. 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 the applicant asserts MST. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant's PTSD and asserted MST existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that applicant's PTSD and MST mitigate the basis for separation, but the applicant already has an Honorable Discharge with Secretarial Authority. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? Yes. The Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member. As a result, the ADRB applied liberal consideration and found that the applicant's PTSD and MST outweighed the applicant's original basis for separation - inappropriate relationship and false official statement - However the applicant already has a Honorable characterization with a narrative reason of Secretarial Authority and no form of more favorable relief is available. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge and the Reentry Code need to be changed. The Board considered this contention and determined that since the applicant already holds Secretarial Authority as the narrative reason for separation, and as an officer RE codes are not applicable, further relief was not warranted. (2) The applicant contends a Combat Action Badge (CAB) should have been awarded and the applicant has a narrative for the award. 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. (3) The applicant contends the discharge was erroneous, inequitable, and unjust, which is no longer serving its purpose because it was procedurally defective, and the adverse action was unfair, and any negative documents should be set aside in their entirety. The Board considered this contention and determined that since the applicant already holds an HD with Secretarial Authority, further relief is not available. (4) The applicant contends the utmost scrutiny and liberal consideration for the PTSD diagnosis should be given, and aside from the unresolved mental health issues resulting in two Article 15 actions, they were also directly related to personal indiscretions. The Board considered this contention and determined that since the applicant already holds an HD with Secretarial Authority, further relief was not warranted. (5) The applicant contends turning the life around and living a responsible life since the discharge, including being employed with a Law Firm and performing Notary Public duties. The Board considered this contention and determined that since the applicant already holds an HD with Secretarial Authority, further relief is not available. (6) The applicant contends the discharge crippled the ability to find meaningful employment. The Board considered this contention and determined that since the applicant already holds an HD with Secretarial Authority, further relief is not available. (7) The applicant contends having served proudly and spectacularly as a deployed Platoon Leader, Brigade Adjutant, and the Battalion S1, and achieving Airborne, Air Assault, and Pathfinder Badges. The Board considered this contention and determined that since the applicant already holds an HD with Secretarial Authority, further relief is not available. (8) The applicant contends granting the requested relief would have a significant impact on the applicant's ability to receive proper benefits and recognition. The Board considered this contention and determined that since the applicant already holds an HD with Secretarial Authority, further relief was not warranted. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, there were administrative errors applied to the applicant's previous upgrade, as detailed below. 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 as it already reflects Secretarial Authority, thus no further relief is possible. The current SPD code is improper and will be changed to KFF. (3) The Board voted to change the applicant's RE code because, it was found that there was an administrative error on the applicant's DD Form 214, thus making the current code improper. AR 601-210 provides detailed instructions for data required in each block of the DD Form 214 and at paragraph 5-6aa (Rules for completing the DD Form 214) for "Block 27: Reentry Code," it states reentry codes are not applicable to officers. Therefore, the applicant, discharged in an officer status, should have an "NA" entered in Block 27 of DD Form 214. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: Yes b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD code to: No Change / KFF d. Change RE Code to: NA e. Change Authority to: AR 15-180 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 AR20210002481 1