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, during those last two years of military service, the applicant was constantly going to behavioral health and Primary Care Manager to figure out what was wrong and how to cope. The applicant states, an exceptional military career went south because the applicant could not cope with PTSD. The applicant’s contributions to the military, past awards, NCOERs, and OERs written by a LTG, COLs, LTCs, CSMs, SGMs, and 1SGs were overlooked, the applicant was immediately labeled and looked down on by leadership. The applicant received prestigious awards, including the BSM, as a young 22-year- old Platoon Sergeant leading convoys all over Iraq. The applicant was nominated to top Military honors, including the McArthur Leadership award. The applicant states, asking the commander for help to get an earlier appointment, but was given an unfair opportunity to receive help and unfair discharge. The applicant read Army news about too many senior leaders doing far worse criminal offenses and receiving a slap on the hand and allowed to retire. The applicant was medically incapacitated from further military service because of mental and physical conditions. The applicant was in the process of a medical discharge through the Disability Evaluation System. The applicant was offered a medical retirement because of not fit for military service because of medical conditions. Instead of continuing with medical treatment and addressing concerns, the applicant was given ten days to leave the Army. After military service, the applicant was awarded 100 percent disability by the VA, with 50 percent from PTSD. It was then the applicant began to receive the medical treatment needed. The applicant was given the proper medication and began discussing problems with the right people. It took several months to learn how to cope with the disorder, and after mindfulness- based treatments, the applicant joined St. Phillip’s college. Later transferred to the University of Texas at San Antonio and received an undergrad degree in Geography and Environmental Sustainability and received an undergrad certificate in GIS. The applicant is enrolled at the same university pursuing Master’s in Geography. The applicant is employed as a government civilian for the Air Force with the grade of GS-13 as the Geospatial Operations Manager for the Air Force Geospatial program. It has been over three years since having any alcoholic beverage. The applicant continues treatment for diagnosis, but every day the applicant thinks, just a few months short of being a military retiree. The applicant asks those who read this letter to look past the incidents which occurred because of triggers or stresses. The applicant was a great Soldier until the disorder took over. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 1 December 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: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Paragraphs 4-2 and Paragraph 4-24 / BNC / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 4 August 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 12 June 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, paragraph 4-2b for misconduct, moral, or professional dereliction: Operating a motor vehicle when blood alcohol content (BAC) was 0.093 grams per 100 milliliters of whole blood, on 15 January 2000, which resulted in a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated February of 2000; operating a motor vehicle when your BAC was 0.208 grams per 100 milliliters of whole blood, which resulted in a GOMOR dated May of 2015; engaging in reckless conduct on 11 October 2014 by driving a vehicle while drunk, which was a conduct likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm. Conduct unbecoming an officer by operating a motor vehicle while drunk. Making a false official statement to CPT G., on or about 4 March 2015, by telling CPT G., “I was not aware drivers’ license were suspended,” or words to effect, which statement was totally false. Disobeying a lawful order from CPT G., not to drive a vehicle; fail to obey the same by wrongfully driving a vehicle on divers’ occasions, between on or about 27 February 2015 and on or about 31 March 2015. Driving a vehicle while drivers’ license was suspended, on divers’ occasions, between on or about 27 February 2015 and on or about 1 April 2015, in violation of Title 7, Section 521.457, of the Texas Penal Code. Wrongfully endeavor to impede an administrative adverse action of the Installation Commander, 502d Mission Support Group, Colonel T., Joint Base San Antonio, Texas, by requesting to restore post driving privileges, under false pretenses while knowing drivers’ license were suspended, and by misrepresenting oneself as a newly-divorced, single parent; wrongfully endeavor to impede an administrative adverse action by Colonel T., by wrongfully causing, under false pretenses, CPT G., and LTC F., to request an approval for restoring on-post driving privileges. Assaulting A., on or about 16 February 2015; criminally trespassing the residence of T., on or about 16 February 2015; violating the terms of probation by committing an offense against the Laws of the State of Texas by assaulting A., violating the terms of probation by committing an offense against the Laws of the State of Texas by criminally trespassing the residence of T. Making and uttering to spouse a check for the purposes of child support, and did, thereafter, dishonorably fail to maintain sufficient funds in bank account for payment of such check upon its presentation for payment. For operating a motor vehicle at approximately 0051 hours, on 11 October 2014, along JV Bacon and DeZavala Road, San Antonio, Texas. A Police Officer approached the applicant immobilized vehicle, which had two flat tires, a broken rim, and a broken axle. The officer noticed the applicant slurred speech, had bloodshot eyes, smelled of an alcoholic beverage, and was disoriented. After the applicant refused to provide a breath sample, a search warrant was issued to draw blood. A test revealed a blood alcohol content (BAC) was 0.208 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of whole blood, which is twice the Texas legal limit of 0.08. (3) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (4) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 21 July 2017, the GOSCA recommended approval of the applicant’s Resignation in Lieu of Elimination and recommended the applicant be involuntarily eliminated from the service. / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (5) DA Board of Review for Eliminations: On 17 July 2017, the Army Ad Hoc Review Board considered the GOSCA’s request to involuntary separate the applicant under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b for misconduct, moral, or professional dereliction, and the applicant’s Resignation in Lieu of Elimination. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 17 July 2017 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) / The separation authority accepted the applicant’s Resignation in Lieu of Elimination based on AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 7 March 2007 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment: / Education: 27 / Less than 2 years college c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: CW3 / 125D0, Geospatial Engineer Technician / 19 years, 1 months, 18 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 17 June 1998 – 8 August 2002 / HD RA, 9 August 2002 – 2 December 2004 / HD RA, 3 December 2004 – 6 March 2007 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii, SWA / Iraq, (4 January 2004 – 17 December 2004; 18 March 2008 – 5 October 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: BSM, MSM, ARCOM-4, AAM-2, ASUA, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, HSM, ICM-CS, NCOPDR-2, OSR-4, ASR g. Performance Ratings: 15 December 2007 – 27 May 2010 / Best Qualified 28 May 2010 – 28 February 2012 / Best Qualified 1 March 2012 – 31 March 2014 / Best Qualified 1 April 2014 – 30 April 2015 / Not Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Cibolo Police Department Supplement Report dated 16 February 2015, reflects, on 16 February 2015 the applicant was charged with assault and criminal trespassing General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand dated 5 March 2015, reflects, at approximately 0051 hours, on 11 October 2014, along JV Bacon and DeZavala Road, San Antonio, Texas, a Police Officer approached the applicant’s immobilized vehicle, which had two flat tires, a broken rim and a broken axle. The Officer noticed the applicant’s slurred speech, had bloodshot eyes, smelled of an alcoholic beverage, and was disoriented. After the applicant refused to provide a breath sample, a search warrant was issued to draw blood. A test revealed a blood alcohol content (BAC) was 0.208 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of whole blood, which is twice the Texas legal limit of 0.08. Finding and recommendations for AR 15-6 Investigation dated 16 September 2016 reflects, on 25 August 2016 at 1317, the applicant, while potentially under the influence of a number of powerful prescribed narcotics and behavioral health medications, sent CPT R. a leave request for convalescent leave. This leave request included three medical documents which had been altered from their original form. This act violates UCMJ Article 107, False official statements; Article 115., Malingering, Article 123, Forgery, Article 134, Public record: altering, concealing, removing, mutilating, obliterating, or destroying, and Article·134, Impersonating a commissioned officer General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand dated 21 October 2016, reflects, the applicant is hereby reprimanded for lying, falsifying documents, malingering, soliciting another to commit a crime, altering a public record, and conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. GO Article 15, dated 21 October 2016, for: On or about 20 and 22 August 2016 with intent to defraud, falsely make a certain writing on a DD Form 689. On or about 23 August 2016 with intent to deceive sign an official record DA Form 31, dated 23 August 2016 and for the purpose of avoiding service as a warrant officer. On or about 23 August 2016 with intent to deceive for the purpose of avoiding service as a warrant officer feign a hand surgery. On or about 22 August and 25 August 2016, willfully and unlawfully alter a public record. On or about 24 and 25 August 2016, with intent to deceive and make a false statement to CPT R. On or about 24 August 2016, wrongfully advised T. to provide a false official statement to CPT R. On or about 25 August 2016, present to CPT R., false medical documents in order to receive convalescent leave the applicant was not entitled to. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $1000 pay per month for two months and written reprimand. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 30 November 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. The applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood (by hx), r/o PTSD. Health Chronological record of medical care dated 31 August 2016, reflects, Anxiety disorder, unspecified; Adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood; Insomnia related to axis III mental disorder. Memorandum for statement of medical condition, reflects, service member was first evaluated for concentration issues September 2012. The applicant was also evaluated by Neuropsychology October 2012, at the time no cognitive disorder or psychiatric diagnosis was warranted. The applicant is being followed by Behavioral Health Psychology and has pending appointments with Psychiatry on 17 October 2016 and Neurology on 26 October 2016. Service member continues to complain of memory and concentration issues and having difficulty distinguishing between what is real and what is not. The applicant gives examples of talking and then freezing because the applicant forgets what was said or done. A trial of stopping medications for almost two weeks was tried without any improvements in symptoms. The applicant is being further evaluated to reach a definitive diagnosis. Prognosis currently is undetermined. The applicant provided a Department of Veterans Affairs dated 16 December 2016, reflects an evaluation of 50 percent for PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; DD Form 149; DD form 214; self- authored statement and VA Rating Decision. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant joined St. Phillip’s college. Later transferred to the University of Texas at San Antonio and received undergraduate degree in Geography and Environmental Sustainability and received an undergraduate certificate in GIS. The applicant is enrolled at the same university pursuing Master’s in Geography. The applicant is employed as a government civilian for the Air Force with the grade of GS-13 as the Geospatial Operations Manager for the Air Force Geospatial program. It has been over three years since having any alcoholic beverage. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities’ last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember’s date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. (1) Paragraph 1-23, provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 1-23a, states an officer will normally receive an honorable characterization of service when the quality of the officer’s service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty, or the final revocation of a security clearance under DODI 5200.02 and AR 380–67 for reasons that do not involve acts of misconduct for an officer. (3) Paragraph 1-23b, states an officer will normally receive a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service when the officer’s military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A separation under general (under honorable conditions) normally appropriate when an officer: Submits an unqualified resignation; Separated based on misconduct; discharged for physical disability resulting from intentional misconduct or neglect; and, for final revocation of a security clearance. (4) Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty. (5) Paragraph 4-2b, prescribes for the elimination of an officer for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interests of national security. (6) Paragraph 4-20a (previously 4-24a) states an officer identified for elimination may, at any time during or prior to the final action in the elimination case elect one of the following options: (1) Submit a resignation in lieu of elimination; (2) request a discharge in lieu of elimination; and, Apply for retirement in lieu of elimination if otherwise eligible. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "BNC" as the appropriate code to assign commissioned officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b, unacceptable conduct; and, 4-24a (1), resignation in lieu of elimination. 8. DISCUSSION 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 asking the commander for help to use their rank to get an earlier appointment, but was given an unfair opportunity to receive help and unfair discharge. The evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting to Army standards by providing counseling and the imposition of non-judicial punishment. The applicant contends the discharge should have been for medical reasons. Army Regulation 600-8-24, states a commissioned or warrant officer under investigation for an offense chargeable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) that could result in dismissal or punitive discharge may not be referred for or continue disability processing unless the investigation ends without charges. The applicant contends an exceptional military career went south because the applicant could not cope with PTSD. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of in-service PTSD. The record shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 30 November 2015, the applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood (by hx), r/o PTSD. The applicant was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. Also, a Health Chronological record of medical care dated 31 August 2016, reflects, Anxiety disorder, unspecified; Adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood; Insomnia related to axis III mental disorder. The applicant provided a Department of Veterans Affairs dated 16 December 2016, reflecting an evaluation of 50 percent for PTSD. The applicant contends contributions to the military, past awards, NCOERs, and OERs written by a LTG, COLs, LTCs, CSMs, SGMs, and 1SGs were overlooked, the applicant was immediately labeled and looked down on by leadership. The applicant received prestigious awards, including the BSM, as a young 22-year-old Platoon Sergeant leading convoys all over Iraq. The applicant was nominated to top Military honors, including the McArthur Leadership award. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service, including two combat tours. The applicant contends obtaining employment and received undergrad degree in Geography and Environmental Sustainability and received an undergrad certificate in GIS. The applicant is enrolled at the same university pursuing Master’s in Geography. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses/experiences: The applicant held in-service diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder and Alcohol Abuse. The applicant’s behavioral health MEB diagnosed Unspecified Anxiety Disorder. The applicant is 30% service connected for PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held in-service diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder and Alcohol Abuse. The applicant’s behavioral health MEB diagnosed Unspecified Anxiety Disorder. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant’s service connected PTSD diagnosis mitigates the post-deployment DUI given the nexus between trauma and substance use. However, all the other offenses due not have a nexus with PTSD and any other potential factors were extensively considered and ruled out with the applicant acknowledging purposeful exaggeration. (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 adjustment disorder, PTSD, and unspecified anxiety disorder outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation –DUI, making a false official statement, failure to obey and order, impeding adverse action trying to restore driving privileges under false pretenses, bouncing child-support check, criminal trespass and assault – for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends asking the commander for help to use their rank to get an earlier appointment, but was given an unfair opportunity to receive help and unfair discharge. (2) The applicant contends the discharge should have been for medical reasons. 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, an exceptional military career went south because the applicant could not cope with PTSD. The Board considered this contention and determined the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. The applicant’s misconduct is partially mitigated by PTSD; however the remaining misconduct outweighs the applicants PTSD mitigation(see paragraph 9. A. of this document. (4) The applicant contends contributions to the military, past awards, NCOERs, and OERs written by a LTG, COLs, LTCs, CSMs, SGMs, and 1SGs were overlooked, the applicant was immediately labeled and looked down on by leadership. The applicant received prestigious awards, including the BSM, as a young 22-year-old Platoon Sergeant leading convoys all over Iraq. The applicant was nominated to top Military honors, including the McArthur Leadership award. And The applicant contends good service, including two 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 a DUI, making a false official statement, failure to obey and order, impeding adverse action trying to restore driving privileges under false pretenses, bouncing child-support check, criminal trespass and assault, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (5) The applicant contends obtaining employment and received undergrad degree in Geography and Environmental Sustainability and received an undergrad certificate in GIS. The applicant is enrolled at the same university pursuing Master’s in Geography. The ADRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. 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. In this case, the Board determined that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. 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, the applicant’s adjustment disorder, PTSD, and unspecified anxiety disorder did not mitigate the offenses of a DUI, making a false official statement, failure to obey and order, impeding adverse action trying to restore driving privileges under false pretenses, bouncing child-support check, criminal trespass and assault. The applicant did not supply sufficient independent corroborating evidence to support contentions, and 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. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, and 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 AR20210002548 1