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 and a change to narrative reason. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant does not believe the applicant received the proper character of discharge or narrative reason. The applicant saw things which were not right by military code and when the applicant brought these issues up for investigation the command did all they could to discredit the applicant’s name. The applicant is requesting a full honorable which is how the applicant conducted oneself while in uniform. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 30 August 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, Chapter 4-2b and 4-24a (1) / BNC / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 10 November 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 26 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, paragraphs 4-2b(5) for acts of personal misconduct; and paragraph 4-2b(8): conduct unbecoming of an officer, due to the following reasons: Between 6 May 2015 and 15 May 2015, while at Fort Hood, Texas, the applicant behaved disrespectfully towards numerous superior commissioned officers. Between 1 May 2015 and 14 May 2015, while at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, and Ft Hood, Texas, the applicant willfully disobeyed lawful commands of several superior commissioned officers on multiple occasions. Between 1 May 2015 and 5 May 2015, the applicant communicated verbal threats to harm a medical provider at the University of Behavioral Health, and to harm personnel at Fort Sill. This conduct is prejudicial to good order and disciple and is of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. (3) Legal Consultation Date: 26 June 2015 (4) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 26 June 2015, the GOSCA recommended approval of the applicant’s request for resignation in lieu of elimination. / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (5) DA Ad Hoc Review Board: The AD Hoc review board considered the applicant’s request for resignation in lieu of elimination in accordance with AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 27 October 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 8 August 2013 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment: / Education: 24 / Bachelor’s Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-2 / 92A, QM General / 2 years, 8 months, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: IADT, 5 March 2013 – 7 August 2013 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: 8 August 2013 – 10 March 2015 / Not Qualified 5 March 2015 – 16 June 2015 / Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Memorandum for Record, dated 17 May 2015, reflects the applicant’s command requested a list of episodes of conduct unbecoming of an officer while the applicant was inpatient at behavioral health. The memorandum lists 18 episodes which the applicant was involved in. It was noted there are other events, but many are along the same lines of the 18 listed. Essentially the applicant continues to push boundaries, ignore requests, disrupt the peace of other patients, intimidate staff members by using profanity, and disobey direct orders from superior officers. The applicant demonstrates consistently a choice to behave in a manner unbecoming of a US military officer. The applicant shows disrespect to the unit and military in general. The applicant is certainly able to tell right from wrong. The applicant’s problems are chronic in nature and the result of an ingrained dysfunctional personality structure and are not service connected. This condition does not make the applicant MEB eligible per AR 40-501 and OTSG/MEDCOM Policy Memo 14-049 (updated 23 June 2014) and prognosis is very poor. The applicant’s pattern of conduct is not conducive to continued military service. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 25 June 2015, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Major Depression and Cluster C Personality Disorders. The applicant provided a copy of VA Rating Decision, dated 22 July 2016, which reflects the applicant was granted 70 percent service-connection for unspecified depressive disorder with anxiety disorder (claimed as anxiety, depression, PTSD and mental health issues). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 149; three DD Forms 214; self- authored statement; DA Form 1059; VA Rating Decision; eight third-party letters; Orders 310- 1307; Orders 313-1302; DD Form 2648; DD Form 2958. 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 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. (1) Paragraph 1-23, provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 1-23a, states an officer will normally receive an honorable characterization of service when the quality of the officer’s service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty, or the final revocation of a security clearance under DODI 5200.02 and AR 380-67 for reasons that do not involve acts of misconduct for an officer. (3) Paragraph 1-23b, states an officer will normally receive a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service when the officer’s military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A separation under general (under honorable conditions) normally appropriate when an officer: Submits an unqualified resignation; Separated based on misconduct; discharged for physical disability resulting from intentional misconduct or neglect; and, for final revocation of a security clearance. (4) Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty. (5) Paragraph 4-2b, prescribes for the elimination of an officer for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interests of national security. (6) Paragraph 4-20a (previously 4-24a), states an officer identified for elimination may, at any time during or prior to the final action in the elimination case elect one of the following options: Submit a resignation in lieu of elimination; request a discharge in lieu of elimination; and, apply for retirement in lieu of elimination if otherwise eligible. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of “BNC” as the appropriate code to assign commissioned officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b, unacceptable conduct; and, 4-24a (1), resignation in lieu of elimination. 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 4, paragraph 4-2b, and 4-24a(1), AR 600-8-24 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Unacceptable Conduct,” and the separation code is “BNC.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be 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 good service. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The applicant contends being hazed by the chain of command and when the applicant reported the misconduct within the ranks, the applicant received death threats, extreme bullying, and intimidation in retaliation. There is no evidence in the Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) the applicant sought assistance or reported the harassment. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant submitted third-party letters supporting the applicant’s contention. The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant’s good conduct while serving and after leaving the Army. 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 the following diagnoses or experiences which can, under certain circumstances, potentially mitigate or excuse misconduct leading to separation: Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Depression, Paranoid and Borderline Personality Disorder, PTSD, Bipolar Disorder, Panic Disorder, Alcohol Dependence, Major Depression, and Mood Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board’s Medical Advisor found that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Depression, Paranoid and Borderline Personality Disorder, PTSD, Bipolar Disorder, Panic Disorder, Alcohol Dependence, Major Depression, and Mood Disorder 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, while the applicant has several behavioral health diagnoses, including PTSD (not rated) and Mood Disorder, the applicant’s medical records indicate that the applicant’s behavior is more likely than not related to underlying personality disorders. Therefore, none of the applicant’s behavioral health conditions mitigate the applicant’s offenses of conduct unbecoming an officer - multiple offenses of willfully disobeying lawful commands of several superior commissioned officers , and communicating verbal threats to medical personnel at the University of Behavioral Health and at Fort Sill as such misconduct is not part of the sequela of symptoms associated with any of the applicant’s behavioral health conditions. (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 there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Depression, Paranoid and Borderline Personality Disorder, PTSD, Bipolar Disorder, Panic Disorder, Alcohol Dependence, Major Depression, and Mood Disorder outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated offenses of conduct unbecoming an officer - disrespect, disobeying lawful orders, communicating verbal threats. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs to be changed. The Board considered this contention and determined that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the applicant’s behavioral health conditons outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated offenses of conduct unbecoming an officer - disrespect, disobeying lawful orders, communicating verbal threats to warrant a change to the narrative reason. The Board also considered the totality of the applicant’s record, including the applicant’s behavioral health conditions and determined that narrative change is not warranted as the narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Unacceptable Conduct,” and the separation code is “BNC.” (2) The applicant contends good service. 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. The applicant’s disrespect, disobeying lawful orders, communicating verbal threats diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge. (3) The applicant contends being hazed by the chain of command and when the applicant reported the misconduct within the ranks, the applicant received death threats, extreme bullying, and intimidation in retaliation. The Board considered this contention, but determined that the Army has many legitimate avenues available to service members requesting assistance with unfair treatment by chain of command, and there is no evidence in the official records nor provided by the applicant that such assistance was pursued. The Board concluded that the applicant’s disrespect, disobeying lawful orders, communicating verbal threats is not an acceptable response to dealing with unfair treatment by chain of command, thus the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (4) The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. The Board considered the third-party statements, and determined they do not outweigh the applicant’s basis of separation. 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 before the Board, the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Depression, Paranoid and Borderline Personality Disorder, PTSD, Bipolar Disorder, Panic Disorder, Alcohol Dependence, Major Depression, and Mood Disorder did not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated conduct unbecoming an officer - disrespect, disobeying lawful orders, communicating verbal threats. The Board also considered the applicant’s contention of being hazed by the chain of command and found that the weight of the evidence does not support that the Command hazed the applicant. 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 AR20210002558 1