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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, there was never enough evidence to be charged with several Article 15s. The applicant was targeted by Army leadership over the course of the applicant’s time at United States Central Command (USCENTCOM). The applicant should have been processed under a medical evaluation board (MEB) / military medical review board (MMRB) several times because of injuries sustained during combat but was declined by the leadership. The chain of command extended the applicant’s service to convene a separation board, although the applicant was QMP’d (Army Qualitative Management Program (QMP)) one and a half years earlier in March. The applicant had several new ailments, which were ignored, such as more than 35 seizures, but the applicant remained on active duty. There were several investigations initiated by other branches with poor results. Several investigations were incomplete, and some members fabricated statements. The applicant believes this was an error on the government’s part as the board did not have conclusive evidence to discharge the applicant with a general (under honorable conditions). There were several documents which supported the applicant’s case for a medical retirement, but they were thrown to the side while the applicant waited two years for a separation board. The applicant was waiting to out-process because of QMP, which USCENTCOM extended to process the administrative separation board. The applicant attended an MEB in 2010 and was kept in the Army because of the applicant’s clearance level instead of being retired. The applicant had several severe injuries to include the neck, back, shoulder, knees, ribs, chest, legs, and feet. The applicant provided the applicant’s record and evaluations to provide insight regarding the applicant. The applicant served several tours in Afghanistan and Iraq, receiving two Valorous Awards and several others. The applicant requests an upgrade to reflect the applicant’s honorable service for the applicant and the applicant’s family. The applicant requests this be taken into consideration to upgrade the applicant’s discharge. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 20 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) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 22 December 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 16 August 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant provided the Notification memorandum which reflects the applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 16 March 2015, the applicant received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for the following offenses: transmitting explicit, degrading, humiliating, and demeaning electronic mail messages using U. S. Government computer networks to members of the directorate about a servicemember within the directorate (19 November 2014); and transmitting electronic mail messages using U.S Government computer networks with explicit, degrading, humiliating and demeaning content about homosexuals to members in the directorate (23 September 2014). On diverse occasions between 1 March 2013 and 5 November 2014, using humiliating, and derogatory terms such as “faggot,” “fat fuck,” and “fuck face” toward Servicemembers in the directorate. Between 1 June 2013 and 5 November 2014, in front of other members from the directorate, the applicant called a Servicemember crazy, and noted the said servicemember “saw dead people,” or words to that effect. On 6 January 2016, the applicant received NJP for making false official statements to a senior noncommissioned officer and a field grade officer by asserting the applicant had been given clearance to drive by the applicant’s neurologist (between 1 March and 15 June 2015). On 31 March 2016, the applicant received NJP for assaulting the applicant’s spouse by hitting the spouse in the face with a TV remote control and a water bottle (5 February 2016). (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 25 August 2016, the administrative separation board convened, and the applicant appeared with counsel. The board found that the allegations were supported by preponderance of the evidence but only the offense of assaulting the applicant’s spouse warranted the applicant’s separation. The Board recommended the applicant’s discharge with characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). On 1 September 2016, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 1 September 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 6 January 2012 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 32 / HS Graduate / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 35G30, Geospatial Intelligence Imagery Analyst / 15 years, 10 months, 3 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 20 February 2001 – 4 August 2003 / HD RA, 5 August 2003 – 7 September 2005 / HD RA, 8 September 2005 – 19 October 2007 / HD RA, 20 October 2007 – 5 January 2012 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii, SWA / Afghanistan (15 January 2002 – 15 July 2002; 15 November 2012 – 11 April 2013); Iraq (14 February 2003 – 22 November 2003; 7 April 2007 – 29 May 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-2CS, ICM-2CS, MSM, ARCOM-V-2, ARCOM-5, JSAM, AAM-2, JMUA-3, MUC, VUA, AGCM-4, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR- 3, NATOMDL, CIB g. Performance Ratings: 27 May 2011 – 26 December 2012 / Among the Best 27 December 2012 – 26 December 2013 / Among the Best 27 December 2013 – 26 December 2014 / Fully Capable 27 December 2014 – 31 March 2016 / Not Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 16 March 2015, for, on three occasions, violating a lawful general regulation, by wrongfully: Transmitting electronic mail messages to members of the applicant’s directorate with explicit, degrading, humiliating and demeaning content about homosexuals in an effort to exclude or reject Petty Officer N. M. (19 November 2014); Transmitting to members of the applicant’s directorate an electronic mail message with the degrading, humiliating, and demeaning comment “what the F*@k is wrong with you,” reference Sergeant B. W. (23 September 2014); and Using U.S. Government computer networks to transmit electronic mail messages with explicit, degrading, humiliating and demeaning content about homosexuals to members of the applicant’s directorate (19 November 2014). The DA Form 2627 is void of the page which would reflect the punishment imposed and the action taken on the appeal submitted by the applicant. The applicant provided the Commander’s Report, which reflects the punishment consisted of a reduction to E-5 (suspended); a forfeiture of $600 pay; and extra duty for 10 days. Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status, dated 15 June 2015, reflects the applicant was admitted into Saint Joseph’s Hospital on 20 May 2015 because the applicant was in a rollover motor vehicle accident and delivered to the hospital by ambulance with multiple trauma injuries. The applicant was under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol content of .04. The medical examiner indicated the applicant was not following medical advice to not drive and not consume alcohol. The examiner references a note dated 11 May 2015 – Florida Comprehensive Epilepsy and Seizure Disorder Program, Dr. R. – N. The commander indicated a formal line of duty investigation was required and the injury was not considered to have been incurred in line of duty. Report of Investigation Line of Duty and Misconduct Status, undated, reflects the applicant suffered a fractured/dislocated foot, broken shin, three cracked vertebrae, broken orbital bone and severe laceration to the face when the applicant’s vehicle left the roadway onto the west shoulder and struck a tree with its front right. The Investigating Officer determined the injuries were not incurred in the line of duty and the applicant’s own misconduct was a significant contributing factor to the incident. FG Article 15, dated 29 December 2015, for, with intent to deceive, make a false official statement, to: Sergeant First Class M. O., to wit: “My neurologist removed my driving restrictions” (between 1 and 31 March 2015); and Major M. C., to wit: “Yes, my neurologist, Dr. R., cleared me to drive after performing extensive medical testing.” The DA Form 2627 is void of the punishment imposed. The applicant appealed and the form is void of the action taken on the appeal. The applicant provided the Commander’s Report, which shows the applicant’s punishment consisted of a reduction to E-5 and forfeiture of $1,562.85 pay per month for two months (suspended). The applicant provided electronic mail messages, dated from 21 January to 30 March 2016, which reflect the applicant was pending an MEB, which was terminated because of the applicant’s vehicle accident and the applicant being under a physician’s care. Subsequently, the 6th Medical Group determined not to pursue the MEB. Pasco county Sherriff’s Office Incident Report, dated 5 February 2016, reflects the applicant was arrested for Domestic Battery when, according to the applicant’s spouse, the applicant threw a remote control at the spouse striking the spouse on the right side of the forehead and then picked up a water bottle hitting the spouse on the nose. The applicant denied throwing the items. The applicant stated the spouse punched the applicant on the right side of the forehead. FG Article 15, dated 31 March 2016, for unlawfully striking K. P. on the face with a remote control and water bottle (31 March 2016). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4 and forfeiture of $1,241.70 pay per month for two months (suspended). The applicant appealed and the appeal was denied. The applicant provided memorandum, subject: Notification of Denial of Continued Active Duty Service under the Qualitative Management Program, dated 29 April 2016, which reflects the applicant was scheduled to be involuntarily discharged from the Army no later than 1 November 2016, under QMP. The administrative separation board proceedings’ AR 15-6 Investigation Findings and Recommendations, dated 25 August 2016, reflects the board found: The allegation on 23 September 2014, the applicant transmitted explicit, degrading, humiliating, and demeaning electronic mail messages using U. S. Government computer networks to members in the applicant’s directorate about homosexuals was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. This finding did not warrant the separation of the applicant. The allegation on 19 November 2014, the applicant transmitted explicit, degrading, humiliating, and demeaning electronic mail messages using U.S. Government computer networks to members of the applicant’s directorate about a service member within the directorate was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. This finding did not warrant the separation of the applicant. The allegation the applicant used humiliating and derogatory terms such as “faggot,” “fat fuck,” and “fuck face” toward Servicemembers on multiple occasions between 1 March 2013 and 5 November 2014 was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. This finding did not warrant the separation of the applicant. The allegation the applicant called a Servicemember crazy and said that the Servicemember “saw dead people,” or words to that effect, between 1 June 2013 and 5 November 2014 was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. This finding did not warrant the separation of the applicant. The allegation the applicant made false official statements to a senior noncommissioned officer and a field grade officer by stating the applicant had been given clearance to drive by the applicant’s neurologist, which actions resulted in the applicant being found guilty in an Article 15 hearing on 6 January 2016, was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. This finding did not warrant the separation of the applicant. The allegation the applicant hit the spouse in the face with a TV remote control and a water bottle on or about 5 February 2016, which actions resulted in the applicant being found guilty in an Article 15 hearing on or about 31 March 2016, was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. This finding did warrant the separation of the applicant. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Temporary Physical Profile, dated 15 December 2015, reflects an “S3” for “Mental Health.” The applicant had a major accident and was completing Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment (ADAPT) in an in-patient facility. Report of Medical Examination, dated 3 March 2016, reflects the examining medical physician noted in the summary of defects and diagnoses section: Patient is considered PULHES S3 because of being an ADAPT treatment failure. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 21 March 2016, reflects the applicant was cleared for chapter separation. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Alcohol Use Disorder, moderate (by history). The applicant provided the military Medical Record, dated 25 October 2016, which reflects multiple active problems, to include, but not limited to: Insomnia; obstructive sleep apnea; alcohol abuse / dependence; psychosocial and environmental problems; back issues; respiratory issues; ribs issues; and chest issues. Six pages of the Medical Record are illegible. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; DD Form 214; DD Form 293; Congressional documents; Enlisted Record Briefs; military awards and orders; certificate of training; Service School Academic Evaluation Reports; NCO Evaluation Reports; list of perspective personnel for character references; 13 third party character references; Request for Standby Advisory Board (STAB); separation documents; Notification of Denial of Continued Active Duty Service under Qualitative Management Program (QMP); Medical Record. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities’ last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember’s date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 1-33b states that [w]hen the medical treatment facility (MTF) commander or attending medical officer determines that a Soldier being processed for administrative separation under Chapter 14, does not meet the medical fitness standards for retention (see AR 40–501, chap 3), he/she will refer the Soldier to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) in accordance with AR 40–400. The administrative separation proceedings will continue, but final action by the separation authority will not be taken, pending the results of MEB. (2) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (3) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (4) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (5) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (6) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. (7) Paragraph 14-12c prescribes a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. (8) Paragraph 19-2b states that [t]he QMP is not intended as a substitute, and does not relieve commanders of the responsibility, for initiation of separation proceedings under other provisions of this regulation when required or appropriate 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 “JKQ” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes. RE-3 applies to a person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. g. Army Regulation 40-501, Standards of Medical Fitness governs individual medical readiness; medical fitness standards for induction, enlistment, appointment, and retention; deployment-limiting medical conditions; and related policies and procedures. (1) Paragraph 3-4 Soldiers with any medical conditions, injury, or defect (individually or in combination) that meets the definition of disqualifying medical condition or physical defects will be referred to DES by profiling officer and medical approval authority by submitting a permanent profile with a 3 or 4 designation for conditions that have meet the Medical Retention Determination Point (MRDP). (2) All permanent PULHES codes of 3 or 4 require referral to a Military Occupational Specialty Retention Review (MAR2) if the Soldier meets the medical retention standards of chapter 3. If the Soldier has a permanent PULHES code of 3 or 4 and does not meet the medical retention standards of chapter 3, then the Soldier will be referred to the DES 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 applicant’s medical issues were ignored. The applicant provided medical documents which reflects the applicant was treated by medical personnel for multiple medical conditions, to include, but not limited to: Insomnia; obstructive sleep apnea; alcohol abuse / dependence; psychosocial and environmental problems; back issues; respiratory issues; ribs issues; and chest issues. The applicant was pending an MEB, but the MEB was discontinued. The applicant’s Army Military Resource Record (AMHRR) contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of in-service alcohol use disorder, moderate (by history). The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 21 March 2016, which indicates the applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends harassment by members of the chain of command and there was not enough evidence to be charged under Article 15, UCMJ. The AMHRR reflects the applicant was provided the opportunity to consult with counsel. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the harassment. The applicant contends, the applicant’s service was extended to process an administrative separation board, although the applicant was pending separation under QMP. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 19-2, in effect at the time, provides the QMP is not intended as a substitute, and does not relieve commanders of the responsibility, for initiation of separation proceedings under other provisions of this regulation when required or appropriate. The applicant contends good service, including four combat tours. The applicant contends a medical evaluation board was under process at the time of the separation proceedings. The applicant provided documents, which reflect the applicant was pending an MEB, but the MEB was terminated by the medical treatment facility. Army Regulation 635-200, Paragraph 1-33, in effect at the time, provides when a Soldier is being processed for separation for misconduct and an MEB findings indicate referral of the case to a physical evaluation board (PEB) is warranted, the GCMCA may direct, in writing, the Soldier be processed through the physical disability system when action under the UCMJ had not been initiated and it has been determined the Soldiers medical condition is the direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct which led to the recommendation for administrative separation or, other circumstances of the individual case warrant disability processing instead of further processing for administrative separation. If the GCMCA decides to process the Soldier through the physical disability system, the unit commander will suspend the administrative separation action pending the PEB. If the Soldier is found physically fit, the administrative separation action will be resumed. If the Soldier is found physically unfit, the administrative separation action will be abated. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant’s good military service. 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/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially mitigating diagnoses/experiences: PTSD (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board’s Medical Advisor found the applicant’s PTSD existed during 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 there are no mitigating Behavioral Health conditions as assaulting the applicant’s spouse are not part of the natural history or sequelae of PTSD and, as such, are not mitigated under Liberal Consideration. (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 applicant’s PTSD did not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated offense of domestic assault. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the applicant’s medical issues were ignored. The Board liberally considered this contention, however the Board determined that there is no evidence of said conduct by command in official or medical records, and the applicant did not provide supporting documentation by a qualified medical professional to provide merit to the claim. Rather, the applicant provided documents that reflected the applicant was treated by medical personnel for multiple medical conditions during the applicant’s service. Further, the applicant’s MSE reflected the applicant was cleared for administrative separation. Ultimately, the Board determined that the assertion alone did not outweigh the applicant’s offenses of transmitting explicit messages that were demeaning to homosexuals, using derogatory terms towards Servicemembers, domestic assault, and making false official statements due to the severity of these offenses. (2) The applicant contends harassment by members of the chain of command and there was not enough evidence to be charged under Article 15, UCMJ. The Board considered this contention but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with harassment from chain of command, and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. Rather, the applicant’s official records include numerous adjudicated Article 15s detailing specific misconduct warranting discharge. The Board concluded that the applicant’s misconduct is not an acceptable response to dealing with alleged harassment from chain of command, thus the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (3) The applicant contends, the applicant’s service was extended to process an administrative separation board, although the applicant was pending separation under QMP. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s discharge was proper and equity because the separation authority acted properly in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 19-2, in effect at the time, which requires commanders to initiate separation under other provisions when required or appropriate. (4) The applicant contends good service, including four combat tours. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record but determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By the aforementioned misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (5) The applicant contends a medical evaluation board was in process at the time of the separation proceedings. The Board considered this contention and determined that, based on the applicant’s official medical records, the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s MEB resulted in the applicant’s being reclassified from 11B to 35G30, Geospatial Intelligence Imagery Analyst. 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, the applicant’s PTSD, Insomnia; obstructive sleep apnea; alcohol abuse / dependence; psychosocial and environmental problems did not excuse or mitigate the basis for applicant’s separation – transmitting explicit messages that were demeaning to homosexuals, using derogatory terms towards Servicemembers, and domestic assault. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. Therefore, the applicant’s General Discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to 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 AR20210002505 1