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 the narrative reason for separation. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant was discharged from the service because of two civilian felony charges, but the chain of command was aware the charges were pending dismissal and expungement from the applicant’s record. The applicant believes the chain of command was on a high horse of discharging Soldiers because of the military’s goal of downsizing. The applicant was nearing the end of the medical evaluation board (MEB) when it was stopped and the applicant was separated from the service instead of receiving the applicant’s 100 percent service-connected disability. The applicant requests an upgrade and a narrative reason change. The narrative reason, “Serious Offense,” contributed to the applicant being denied employment with any law enforcement agency. The applicant worked hard to obtain a Bachelor of Arts in Criminal Justice. The applicant’s goal since being a child was to be a military police officer and become the Sergeant Major of the Army, but due to the separation, the applicant still desires to become a police officer, to serve and protect the community. The applicant’s civilian record has been expunged, and the applicant believes it is only right the applicant’s military record be expunged as well. The applicant had a very successful military career until the applicant arrived at Fort Bragg, where things were not equal and the morale was very bad. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 9 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 12 August 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF / The Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) reflects the separation was initiation on 4 November 2013 and the applicant was properly notified. (2) Basis for Separation: The AMHRR is void of the notification memorandum. The Commander’s Report, undated, reflects: On 21 June 2012, the applicant converted the applicant’s vehicle to a shuttle service constituting off- duty employment without the permission of the company commander. On 17 February 2012, the applicant wrongfully impersonated a military police officer by sounding a law enforcement air horn to stop another vehicle for speeding. On 28 March 2013, the applicant failed to go to the appointed place of duty. Between 1 October 2012 and 31 July 2013, the applicant exploited J. B., through domestic neglect with injury to J. B., unlawfully obtaining $4,276.85 of J. B.’s funds, and failed to provide medical care to J. B. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions / The battalion commander recommended general (under honorable conditions). (4) Legal Consultation Date: 17 December 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 17 December 2013, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 16 January 2014, the separation authority disapproved the conditional waiver an referred the case to an administrative separation board. On 24 January 2014, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of rights. On 14 March 2014, the administrative separation board convened, and the board recommended the applicant’s discharge with characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 11 October 2010 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 92A20, Automated Logistical Specialist / 6 years, 1 month, 20 days / DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), dated 18 August 2014, corrected the separation date, but did not change the net active service this period reflected as 6 years, 2 months, 6 days on the DD Form 214. d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 24 June 2008 – 10 October 2010 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (25 February 2010 – 5 February 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-2CS, ARCOM, AAM-3, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: 1 February 2011 – 15 August 2011 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 18 February 2012, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: impersonating an agent – a member of the military police under Article 134, UCMJ (on post). Investigation revealed the applicant was traveling behind a driver in the applicant’s vehicle and sounded a law enforcement air horn the applicant had installed in the vehicle. The applicant pulled the vehicle over and approached the vehicle, identifying as an undercover military police officer. Two Developmental Counseling Forms, dated 16 March and 12 June 2012, for various acts of misconduct. FG Article 15, dated 25 July 2012, for failing to obey a lawful order from Captain T., by wrongfully obtaining off duty employment without written permission from the company commander (21 June 2012); and wrongfully impersonating an agent of superior authority of the Army by sounding a law enforcement air horn and identifying as an undercover Military Police Officer (17 February 2012). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4; forfeiture of $1,078 pay per month for two months; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. The applicant appealed and the appeal as denied. The applicant provided State of North Carolina Order of Dismissal, dated 17 January 2014, which reflects the applicant’s case regarding J. B. was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to appear on the scheduled trial date and prosecute the action. The case was dismissed without prejudice. Administrative Separation Board Findings and Recommendations, dated 14 March 2014, reflects the board found the applicant did comment the offenses as described in the Commander’s Report, to include exploiting J. B. Memorandum, subject: Legal Review of Administrative Separation Proceedings, AR 635-200, [Applicant], dated 1 May 2014, reflects, the applicant was processed through an MEB, which recommended referral to a physical evaluation board (PEB), for several medical conditions, including: Bilateral knee Degenerative Osteoarthritis with Chronic Bilateral Patellofemoral Syndrome; Chronic Left Wrist Strain; and Asthma. The administrative law attorney advised the separation authority of the authority to abate the administrative separation and direct the Soldier be processed through the physical disability system or proceed with administrative separation processing. Commander’s Report, undated, as described in previous paragraph 3c(2), additionally reflects the applicant received a CG Article 15, dated 7 May 2013, for failing to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty (28 March 2013). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; forfeiture of $470 pay (suspended); and extra duty (suspended). The applicant was pending a medical evaluation board (MEB). The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant’s signature indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of Misconduct (Serious Offense), with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant provided State of North Carolina Petition and Order of Expunction, dated 22 October 2015, reflects the applicant’s petition to the court for the offenses of Obtaining Property False Pretense, arrest date 2 June 2014; Exploit Disable/Elderly Trust, arrest date 1 September 2012; and Harassing Phone Calls, arrest date 3 August 2013, was granted. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; North Carolina Court documents. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends attaining a Bachelor of Arts in Criminal Justice, pursuing employment with law enforcement as a police officer, and having the civilian charges expunged from the applicant’s record. 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 the command was aware the civilian charges were dismissed, and the command separated the applicant because of the military’s goal to downsize. 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 applicant contends a medical evaluation board was under process at the time of the separation proceedings, with a possible 100 percent service-connected disability. The Department of Defense disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation while undergoing a medical board. Appropriate regulations stipulate separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons. Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board and is subsequently processed for an involuntary administrative separation for misconduct, the administrative separation proceedings will continue, but final action by the separation authority will not be taken, pending the results of the MEB. If the MEB findings indicate referral of the case to a physical evaluation board (PEB) is warranted, a copy of the approved MEB proceedings will be forwarded to the Soldier’s GCMCA and unit commander. The GCMCA may direct the Soldier be processed through the physical disability system, when court-martial proceedings have not been initiated, or to continue with the administrative separation action. The applicant requests a medical discharge. The applicant’s requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within this board’s purview. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge and narrative reason change will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. The applicant contends attaining a Bachelor of Art in Criminal Justice, pursuing employment with law enforcement as a police officer, and having the civilian charges expunged from the applicant’s record. 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: Adjustment Disorder and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found AHLTA contains in-service BH diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder and PTSD. JLV does not contain any additional post-service diagnoses. The applicant is 90% service connected, 70% for PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that while the applicant has a BH diagnosis of PTSD this is only a partially mitigating factor for applicant’s misconduct. Applicant’s FTR (avoidance) can be part of the sequela of symptoms associated with PTSD. However, starting a shuttle service constituting off-duty employment without the permission of the company commander, wrongfully impersonating a military police officer, and exploiting J. B., through domestic neglect with injury to J. B., unlawfully obtaining $4,276.85 of J. B.’s funds, and failing to provide medical care to J. B., are not as there is no nexus between these behaviors and PTSD. Rather these are willful and conscious behaviors, some perpetrated over time designed to profit from applicant’s behaviors. (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 available evidence did not outweigh the medically unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation – impersonating a military police officer, off-post employment without approval, and fraud. b. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant requests a medical discharge contending a medical evaluation board was under process at the time of the separation proceedings, with a possible 100 percent service-connected disability. The Board determined that eligibility for medical disability does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. 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. (2) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention and determined that there is insufficient evidence to support a change to the applicant’s narrative reason for discharge. Thus, the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (3) The applicant contends the command was aware the civilian charges were dismissed, and the command separated the applicant because of the military’s goal to downsize. The Board voted after considering the contention and determined that the applicant- provided documents indicate that the civil suit against the applicant was dismissed, however, the applicant was convicted of the associated criminal charges. Those charges have since been expunged, but the Board determined that this did not outweigh the basis of separation due to the severity of the offenses. The applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (4) The applicant contends being successful in the military until getting to Ft. Bragg. The Board considered this contention, including applicant’s six years of service and tour in Afghanistan, but determined that the totality of the applicant’s service record did not outweigh applicant’s offenses of impersonating a military police officer, off-post employment without approval, FTR and fraud. (5) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. (6) The applicant contends attaining a Bachelor of Art in Criminal Justice, pursuing employment with law enforcement as a police officer, and having the civilian charges expunged from the applicant’s record. The Board considered applicant’s post-service accomplishments and the change to applicant’s civilian record, but determined that they do not outweigh applicant’s offenses of impersonating a military police officer, off-post employment without approval, FTR. 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 and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder did not outweigh the medically unmitigated offenses of impersonating a military police officer, off-post employment without approval, and fraud. The Board also considered the applicant's contentions regarding the military’s goal of downsizing and applicant’s post-service accomplishments and found that the totality of the applicant's record does not warrant a discharge upgrade. 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 AR20210002606 1