1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: Yes 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, a change in narrative reason to Secretarial Authority, a narrative reason and SPD Code change to “other”. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, suffering during and after deployment from an undiagnosed and untreated bipolar disorder, depression, insomnia and personal problems affected the applicant’s ability to serve. From 2006 to 2008 the applicant served without any incidents with an “Outstanding Performance, Must Promote” Officer Evaluation Report (OER). The applicant was diagnosed with depression and a mild adjustment disorder in 2007. In 2008, the applicant deployed to Iraq and became overwhelmed and depressed. The applicant was discharged, but states MG H. recommended the discharge with a characterization of service of honorable. The applicant believes leadership did not provide medical counseling or treatment for the bipolar disorder, and other related medical conditions were not fully considered before separation. The applicant believes had the medical conditions been properly diagnosed, the applicant would still be serving in the Army. The Veterans Affairs (VA) diagnosed the applicant with service-connected bipolar disorder within three weeks of the discharge. The applicant was rated by the VA at 30 percent for bipolar disorder, which increased the overall disability rating to 70 percent. The applicant is currently receiving proper treatment and has reestablished life as a successful security professional. The applicant contends basing the discharge solely on conduct, which was symptomatic of undiagnosed and untreated bipolar disorder, without considering prior performance, is unjust and unfair. The applicant requests consideration of service record before the onset of bipolar disorder, and accomplishments after separation once properly treated, truly reflective of applicant’s character of service. The applicant states the U.S. Court of Federal Claims remanded a case (AR20150003185) involving medical retirement to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) where the applicant argued medically retirement versus honorably discharged. The applicant was diagnosed with a major depressive disorder with psychotic features. The ABCMR decided to grant full relief because the medical conditions from were sufficiently supported in the record at the time of discharge. The Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) has previously granted relief in cases where Soldiers with bipolar disorder impaired ability to deal with stress. In AR2003095866, the applicant requested an upgrade of discharge, after Special Court-Martial found the applicant guilty of misconduct. The applicant was subsequently separated with a general discharge. The applicant was undergoing treatment for bipolar disorder and personality disorder at the time of discharge. The Board granted relief considering the applicant’s mitigating medical condition, 3 years of service, and the fact numerous violations occurred on the same day. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 2 February 2023, 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 / JNC / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 23 December 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 2 September 2009 (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 4-2(a)(1-6, & 8), 4-2b(4-5, & 8), and 4- 2(c)(4) for substandard performance of duty, for committing acts of personal misconduct and conduct unbecoming an officer, and for having derogatory information in personnel file Over the last two years, the applicant demonstrated a downward trend in overall performance, resulting in a consistent record of mediocre service. The applicant has failed to progress with contemporaries, failed to absorb the technical proficiency required for grade and competitive category, failed to properly perform assignments commensurate with grade and experience, and failed to exercise the necessary leadership expected of an officer. The applicant has further shown poor attitude and an unwillingness to expend effort and has further failed to conform to prescribed standards of personal appearance. On several occasions throughout the last two years, the applicant engaged in multiple instances of misconduct and conduct unbecoming an officer. The applicant failed to report on multiple occasions for duty; failed to conduct multiple checks in accordance with duty instructions; left the scene of a vehicle accident on 23 April 2009, after damaging multiple vehicles and not making identity known; and posted disrespectful, unprofessional, and immature comments on a public social networking site while deployed, which also violated Operations Security (OPSEC). While deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the applicant was relieved of duties by Commander for failing to follow instructions, making disloyal comments about chain of command, immature behavior, and for dereliction of duty. The applicant received a relief for cause OER, which the applicant signed on 5 November 2008. (3) Board of Inquiry (BOI): NA (4) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 30 October 2009, the GOSCA recommended disapproval of the applicant’s request for retention and recommended involuntarily eliminated from service / Honorable. (5) DA Board of Review for Eliminations: On 4 December 2009, the Army Board of Review for Eliminations considered the GOSCA’s request to involuntary separate the applicant for substandard performance in accordance with AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b and derogatory information in accordance with AR 600-8-24, para 4-2c. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 23 December 2009 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 5 June 2006 / 4 years b. Age at Appointment: / Education: 21 / Bachelor’s Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-1 / 14A 5P, Air Defense Artillery / 3 years, 6 months, 19 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (15 April 2008 – 30 September 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR g. Performance Ratings: 12 May 2006 – 1 April 2008 / Best Qualified 1 April 2008 – 1 October 2008 / Do Not Promote 2 October 2008 – 15 May 2009 / Do Not Promote h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of a Respect- MIL Provider Assessment, dated 3 July 2007, the examining medical physician noted in the Assessment Notes: depression, mild adjustment disorder. The applicant declined the behavioral health treatment referral. The applicant provided a copy of a Psychiatric Evaluation, dated 16 November 2007, the examining medical physician diagnosed the applicant with bipolar disorder, Not Otherwise Specified. The physician states based on the records the applicant was suffering from Bipolar Disorder before the discharge. The applicant provided a copy of a VA disability rating decision, dated 28 February 2014, reflecting the applicant was rated 30 percent disability for bipolar disorder. The applicant provided a letter from a Clinical Psychologist, dated 4 October 2021, reflecting the applicant’s diagnoses: Bipolar Disorder – non-specified. The Clinical Psychologist’s assessment was consistent with this diagnosis, including clear periods of depressive symptomatology (i.e., depressed affect, decreased energy, increased sleep, negative view of life, hopelessness regarding the future, extreme anxiety, shame, alcohol use, paranoid and suicidal ideation) and episodes of hypomania (i.e., unusual energy, flight of ideas, agitation, impulsive, unrealistic spending of money, pressured speech, bursts of creativity, grandiosity). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Legal Brief with all listed enclosures A through N; Officer Record Brief; third-party letters; case separation packet; medical records; copies of military personnel records; self-authored statement. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has reestablished life as a successful security professional and volunteering in the community. 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 “JNC” 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. 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 to “other.” The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, 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 “JNC.” 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 exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends the SPD code should be changed to “other.” SPD codes are three- character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. SPD Codes are controlled by OSD and then implemented in Army policy AR 635-5-1 to track types of separations. The SPD code specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, is “JNC.” The applicant contends a reentry eligibility (RE) code should be changed. The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. Based on Army Regulation 601-201, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of “NA.” Officers do not receive a reentry code. There is no basis upon which to grant a change to the RE code. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army’s needs at the time and are required to process waivers if appropriate. The applicant contends suffering during and after deployment from an undiagnosed and untreated bipolar disorder, depression, insomnia, and personal problems affecting the applicant’s ability to serve. The applicant provided several medical documents indicating a diagnosis of depression, mild adjustment disorder, bipolar disorder, Not Otherwise Specified. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant ever sought assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends the discharge was unjust because leadership did not provide medical counseling for the applicant’s mental health behavioral problems and the leadership recommended the discharge with a characterization of service of honorable. The separation authority is not bound by the recommendations of the initiating or intermediate commander and has complete discretion to direct any discharge and characterization of service authorized by the applicable provisions of the regulation as stated in Army Regulation 600-8-24, chapter 4-2b. The applicant provided a copy of a Respect-MIL Provider Assessment, dated 3 July 2007, the examining medical physician noted in the Assessment Notes: depression, mild adjustment disorder. The applicant declined the behavioral health treatment referral. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends personal problems affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant ever sought assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends lack of liberal consideration during previous ADRB hearing. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention to lack of liberal consideration. The Board’s Medical Officer states, while in service, the applicant was diagnosed with Insomnia. Post-service, the applicant has a 70 percent service-connected disability rating from the VA; 30 percent is for Bipolar Disorder II Disorder. In summary, the applicant had a medical or behavioral health condition related to, but not mitigating for the offenses which led to separation from the Army. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The applicant contends previously ADRB cases were granted full relief where applicants had bipolar disorder, which led to discharge. The applicant cites other cases AR20150003185, (ABCMR), and AR2003095866, (ADRB) where the cases were granted full relief because of medical conditions. Applicable regulations state each case must be decided on an individual basis, considering the unique facts and circumstances of the particular case. The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant and recognize the applicant’s good conduct. The applicant contends obtaining employment and being a successful civilian in the community. 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: Bipolar Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified (NOS); Adjustment Disorder. (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 Bipolar 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 Bipolar Disorder mitigates the applicant’s underperforming, decrease in effort, issues with personal appearance, and the FTRs as Bipolar Disorder is characterized by both periods of depression and periods of mania or hypomania. During a depressive episode, symptoms can include low motivation, decreased energy, and difficulties executing behaviors associated with an expected daily routine. A period of hypomania, most consistent with the applicant’s medical documentation, could be characterized by periods of impulsivity, irritability, difficulties concentrating, and increased energy. Given these possible symptoms of Bipolar Disorder, it is more likely than not that applicant’s Bipolar contributed to underperforming, decrease in effort, issues with personal appearance, and the FTRs. However, the applicant’s Bipolar Disorder does not mitigate the applicant’s conduct of failing to conduct checks in accordance with duty instructions, leaving the scene of an accident, and posting inappropriate comments on a social networking site while deployed are not behaviors consistent with a Bipolar condition. These are behaviors that involve the ability to distinguish between right and wrong and act accordingly. Rather, the Board’s Medical Advisor opined these behaviors are more reflective of an underlying personality structure that disregards societal norms and expectations. (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 the applicant’s Bipolar Disorder/Adjustment Disorder does not outweigh the applicatn’s medically unmitigated offenses– failing to conduct checks in accordance with duty instructions, leaving the scene of an accident, and posting inappropriate comments on a social networking site while deployed. b. Prior Decisions Cited: AR2003095866, AR20150003185, AR20050010952, and AR20110018776. The ARDB is not bound by its discretionary decisions in prior cases because no cases present the same issues of equity. However, the Board considered the principles cited by the applicant, the description of the relationship of the principles to the applicant’s case under the equity standards. The Board considered the applicant’s medical records and found that the applicant’s diagnosis was not sufficiently supported in the record at the time of the applicant’s separation to disqualify the applicant from service at the time of separation or warrant relief as noted in paragraph 9c(4) below. The Board also considered the applicant’s family problems impact on the applicant’s ability to serve and the applicant’s post service conduct and determined that the applicant’s family issues and post-service accomplishments do not outweigh the applicant’s misconduct. c. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason and accompanying SPD code for the discharge need changed. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record and asserted and contended mitigating conditions, 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 failing to conduct checks in accordance with duty instructions, leaving the scene of an accident, and posting inappropriate comments on a social networking site while deployed, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (2) The applicant contends a reentry eligibility (RE) code changed. The Board considered this contention and determined that reentry codes are only applicable to enlisted Soldiers in accordance with AR 601—280. Therefore, the Board determined a change to the RE code is not warranted as the applicant was an Officer at the time of the applicant’s separation. (3) The applicant contends suffering during and after deployment from an undiagnosed and untreated bipolar disorder, depression, and insomnia affecting the applicant's ability to serve. In this case, the Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s conditions medically mitigated the applicant’s underperformance, decrease in effort, issues with personal appearance, and the FTRs. However, the applicant’s remaining misconduct of failing to conduct checks in accordance with duty instructions, leaving the scene of an accident, and posting inappropriate comments on a social networking site while deployed were serious enough to outweigh the partial mitigation, and the applicant’s current discharge is proper and equitable. (4) The applicant contends the discharge was unjust because leadership did not provide medical counseling for the applicant’s mental health behavioral problems and leadership recommended discharge with a characterization of service of honorable. The Board considered this contention and determined that the medical record contradicts the applicant’s contention as reflected in the applicant provided medical records and official medical records indicating that the applicant received behavioral health treatment on July 2007 that reflected the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder diagnosis and noted that the applicant declined BH services at the time. In May 2009, the applicant subsequently received behavioral health treatment provided by Military OneSource. In October 2009, the applicant was referred for a Command Directed Health Evaluation but was returned to the applicant’s unit after being determined safe. In January 2010, the applicant was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder, not otherwise specified. The Board concluded there were multiply available avenues for the applicant to seek treatment, some of which were taken and some were not, but there is no evidence that the command withheld treatment or acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Rather the applicant declined treatment on at least one occasion. (5) The applicant contends personal problems affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s personal problems did not outweigh the applicant’s misconduct involving leaving the scene of an accident and violation of operation security protocols. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is not warranted. (6) The applicant contends lack of liberal consideration during previous ADRB hearing. The Board considered this contention and determined that the prior ARDB is not bound by its discretionary decisions in prior cases because no cases present the same issues of equity. The current determination is the applicant’s case was properly and equitably considered and there is insufficient evidence to support the applicant’s contention. (7) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record and asserted and contended mitigating conditions, 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 failing to conduct checks in accordance with duty instructions, leaving the scene of an accident, and posting inappropriate comments on a social networking site while deployed, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (8) The applicant contends previous ADRB cases were granted full relief where applicants had bipolar disorder, which led to the discharging misconduct. The Board considered this contention and the prior cases cited by the applicant. The ARDB is not bound by its prior decisions in prior cases because no cases present the same issues of equity. Specifically, the applicant’s leaving the scene of an accident and posting inappropriate comments on a social networking site while deployed are serious offenses due to the threat to others and damage to property. None of the cases the applicant presented as supporting an upgrade had either of these offenses as a part of the basis for separation. (9) The applicant contends obtaining employment and a successful civilian in the community. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s post- service conduct was insufficient to outweigh the serious nature of the medically unmitigated offenses. d. 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. e. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board. While the applicant’s Bipolar Disorder, NOS mitigated the offenses of underperforming, decrease in effort, issues with personal appearance, and the FTRs, the remaining offenses of leaving the scene of an accident and posting inappropriate comments on a social networking site while deployed had no medical mitigation or additional circumstances sufficient enough to outweigh the severity of the applicant’s above-mentioned misconduct. 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 Board voted not to change the applicant’s RE-code as RE-codes apply to do not apply to Officer separation documents; RE codes are applicable for enlisted Soldiers in accordance AR 601—280. 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 AR20210002580 1