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, enlisting as a combat medic. The applicant obtained an Associate's degree while dual enrolled in college and high school. The applicant was assigned to Korea and met a Soldier who would become the applicant's spouse. The applicant's next assignment was at Fort Hood, where the applicant was miserable because of hazing and mistreatment. The applicant found out the spouse was cheating before the spouse deployed to Afghanistan, which was a couple months before the applicant deployed to Iraq. In Iraq, the hazing did not get any better, but eventually the noncommissioned officer responsible was reassigned. The applicant was depressed and anxious. The applicant further details the experiences with the deaths of two Soldiers; the Iraqis responsible for the Soldiers' deaths; and an Iraqi prisoner of war. The applicant was left in the dark regarding the circumstances. The aid station treated patients of improvised explosive devices and the unit endured multiple mortar and small-arms attacks. The incidents reflect the morale and psychological duress the applicant encountered. The applicant was 20 years old at the time. During the Article 15 proceedings, the applicant never believed the applicant was going to be discharged until the separation was in process. The commander told the applicant the discharge would automatically be upgraded. The applicant believed the Army desired Soldiers who took responsibility for their actions and did not know asking for help would make a difference. The applicant was not in the right state of mind when the adultery occurred because of the exposure to the war in Iraq. The applicant suppressed the feelings because there was little time to process the feelings while deployed, which caused the applicant to act out. Since the applicant's service, the applicant has received mental health treatment at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), including multiple trials of antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and transcranial magnetic stimulation. The applicant attempted suicide twice. The applicant's psychiatrist stated the applicant exhibited symptoms of Bipolar, which includes sexual promiscuity and impulsiveness, and began during the deployment. The applicant obtained a Bachelor's degree in Nursing and worked as a registered nurse in the Emergency Department at the Tampa VA Hospital since 2017. The applicant has helped many veterans during the mental health crises and COVID-19 pandemic. The applicant is embarrassed by the DD Form 214 and believes the Army let the applicant down by pushing the applicant out instead of getting to the root of the issue. The applicant was not provided with any resources to help with transitioning back to civilian life. The applicant's mental health has been changed forever and is something the applicant will struggle with. An upgrade would allow the applicant and the family to be proud of the honorable service and sacrifices to the country. The applicant could be at peace knowing the sacrifice of the applicant's mental well-being meant something. The applicant further details the contentions in the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 6 October 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the applicant being the junior partner in the adultery misconduct, and significant post-service accomplishments. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. The Board determined the reentry eligibility (RE) code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 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: 8 June 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 22 April 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 28 March 2011, the commander received a letter from now Specialist (SPC) T.'s spouse, T. T., requesting an investigation into the applicant's relationship with SPC T. The spouse's letter included 108 pages of Facebook correspondence between the applicant and SPC T. In the Facebook messages, the applicant and SPC T., each profess love for each other. Some of the discussions had sexual undertones. During the 15-6 investigation into the matter, SPC T. admitted to having sexual intercourse with the applicant during the deployment. The applicant knew SPC T. was married and had two children. Private First Class (PFC) K. S., the applicant's former roommate, caught the applicant and SPC T. having sexual intercourse in the applicant's Containerized Housing Unit (CHU) on the night of 30 January 2011. After this event the applicant and PFC S. began getting into numerous arguments, which ultimately resulted in the applicant's reassignment to another CHU. This underscored how the applicant's behavior was prejudicial to good order and discipline and service discrediting. The applicant's adulterous affair was in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) / The intermediate commander recommended an honorable discharge. (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 29 April 2011, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 30 April 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 16 July 2008 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / Associate's Degree / 120 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 68W10, Health Care Specialist / 2 years, 10 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Iraq (14 September 2010 - 15 May 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Memorandum, subject: No Contact Order, dated 6 April 2011, reflects SGT T. was given an order to cease all forms of communication with the applicant and SGT T. acknowledged the order. Memorandum for Record, subject: Executive Summary of Commander's Inquiry of Improper Relationship, dated 11 April 2011, reflects the investigating officer (IO) found: The applicant and Sergeant (SGT) T. were married to other people. SGT T.'s spouse found a Facebook conversation using SGT T.'s password to log into SGT T.'s accounts. SGT T.'s spouse sent the conversation to the chain of command. The applicant and SGT T. had a sexual relationship while deployed based on statements in SGT T.'s and SPC S.'s sworn statements. The applicant only made the relationship public to PFC S. The applicant and SGT T. did engage in adulterous acts during the deployment which meets the definition of adultery under Article 134, UCMJ. The applicant and SGT T., wrongfully had sexual intercourse based on the fact both were married. It was proven both Soldiers were married because sexual intercourse took place during the deployment and both Soldiers were married before the deployment. The circumstances surrounding PFC S. knowing an NCO was having sex with a lower enlisted Soldier by walking in on them having sex and eventually leading the applicant having to move out because of confrontation between the two Soldiers proves the applicant's offense was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 12 April 2011, having an inappropriate relationship / adultery. FG Article 15, dated 16 April 2011, for near COS Marez, Iraq, wrongfully had sexual intercourse with SGT S. T., a married person, not the applicant's spouse (between 15 September 2010 and 12 April 2011). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $734 pay per month for two months; and extra duty for 45 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 21 April 2011, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible and could participate in the proceedings. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Two DD Forms 293; three character references; Developmental Counseling Forms. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends obtaining a Bachelor's Degree in Nursing; working in the hospital Emergency Department as a registered nurse; and helping veterans during mental health crisis and throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. 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 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) 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. (3) 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. (4) 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. (5) 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. (6) 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. 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 waivable and nonwaivable 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 waivable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is "JKQ." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends bipolar and other mental health issues affected behavior, which led to the discharge and being rated 50 percent service-connected disability for a trauma and stressor related disorder by the VA. The applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) contains no documentation of a mental health diagnosis. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant's statement, to support the contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 21 April 2011, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and could participate in the proceedings. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends hazing and maltreatment by members of the unit. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the hazing or maltreatment. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Army Regulation 635-200, 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 not receiving any assistance from the chain of command with the mental health issues or any assistance with transitioning to civilian life. The AMHRR is void of any indication the applicant was diagnosed with a mental health condition. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The applicant contends the immediate commander informed the applicant the discharge would be automatically upgraded. The applicant's issue about an upgrade based on the passage of time was carefully considered. The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 293 requesting a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines the characterization of service or the reasons for discharge, or both were improper or inequitable. 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: Other Specified Trauma and Stressor Related Disorder, and Major Depressive Disorder. Additionally, the applicant asserts Bipolar Disorder, which may be sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a condition that could mitigate or excuse the discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant is diagnosed, and service connected by the VA for Other Specified Trauma and Stressor Related Disorder related to combat. Service connection establishes that this condition existed during military service. Applicant also asserts having Bipolar Disorder 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 is no natural sequelae between a trauma disorder and committing adultery. While Bipolar Disorder can have a nexus with sexual promiscuity and impulsiveness as asserted by applicant, there is insufficient evidence that applicant had Bipolar Disorder at the time of military service. Furthermore, applicant's inappropriate relationship involved deliberate communication and occurred over time, both of which suggest that a Bipolar condition did not contribute. There is no medical mitigation offered by any of applicant's BH conditions. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board's application of liberal consideration, the Board considered the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant's Other Specified Trauma and Stressor Related Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder and Bipolar Disorder outweighed the basis for applicant's separation - adultery - for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention and determined the narrative reason for discharge should be upgraded based on the totality of the applicant's service record and applicant being the junior party in the adultery misconduct. The Board voted to upgrade the narrative reason to Misconduct (Minor Infractions). (2) The applicant contends bipolar and other mental health issues affected behavior, which led to the discharge and being rated 50 percent service-connected disability for a trauma and stressor related disorder by the VA. The Board considered this contention and determined the Board must articulate the nexus between applicant's condition or experience and the basis for separation. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former service member is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the ARBA when determining a member's discharge characterization. In this case, the Board considered this contention and determined that applicant's bipolar disorder and mental health issues do not mitigate or excuse applicant's adultery. However, based on the totality of the applicant's service record and applicant being the junior party in the adultery misconduct an upgrade to Honorable is warranted. (3) The applicant contends hazing and maltreatment by members of the unit. The Board considered this contention and determined there is insufficient evidence in the file to support this contention. (4) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention and determined there is insufficient evidence to support this contention, there is evidence in the file that supports applicant had a relationship over time with another Soldier who was married which ultimately supports the applicant's adulterous relationship was not an isolated incident. (5) The applicant contends not receiving any assistance from the chain of command with the mental health issues or any assistance with transitioning to civilian life. The Board voted after considering the contention and finding no evidence of the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. In this case, the Board determined the applicant was counseled during the investigation process and the separation process to ensure applicant was aware of the process and supports available. (6) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant's willingness to serve and considered this contention during board proceedings along with the totality of the applicant's service record. (7) The applicant contends the immediate commander informed the applicant the discharge would be automatically upgraded. The Board considered this contention and determined there is no policy to automatically upgrade military discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 293 requesting a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines the characterization of service or the reasons for discharge, or both were improper or inequitable. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and applicant being the junior partner in the adultery misconduct, and significant post-service accomplishments. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. The Board determined the reentry eligibility (RE) code was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address further 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 to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and applicant being the junior partner in the adultery misconduct, and significant post-service accomplishments outweighed the applicant's misconduct of adultery. Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) under the same pretexts, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. (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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a 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 AR20210002528 1