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 as well as a change to narrative reason and reentry code. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant received an Article 15, which the applicant should not have received. There was an impropriety and unfairness involved because the underlying information was incorrect, which formed the basis for the discharge. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 2 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, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 13 June 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 23 April 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant made a false official statement to a noncommissioned officer (NCO) on 20 January 2013. The applicant made a false official statement to an officer on 18 May 2013. The applicant stole money paid as Basic Allowance Housing, military property, a value of over $500 between 1 November 2012 and 30 April 2013. The applicant stole money paid as Family Separation Pay, military property, a value of over $500 between 1 March and 31 August 2013. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 23 April 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 23 April 2014, 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 13 May 2014, the applicant’s case was referred to an administrative separation board. On 16 May 2014, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 3 June 2014 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 29 October 2012 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 29 / HS Graduate / 105 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 12N20, Horizontal Construction Specialist / 10 years, 11 months, 27 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAF, 17 June 2003 – 1 June 2006 / GD (Break in Service) ARNG, 30 January 2007 – 25 June 2008 / HD RA, 26 June 2008 – 14 November 2011 / HD RA, 15 November 2011 – 28 October 2012 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (9 February 2013 – 5 November 2013); Iraq (1 January 2009 – 31 December 2009); Kuwait (7 September 2004 – 17 March 2005 / The DD Form 214 reflects the applicant was in Iraq from 10 February to 7 November 2013, which dates coincide with the dates the applicant was in Afghanistan and are inconsistent with the applicant’s Enlisted Record Brief. f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM-2, USAFOUA, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM-2, ICM-CS, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-2, USAFTR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: 1 November 2010 – 31 May 2013 / Fully Capable 1 June 2013 – 4 October 2013 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The U.S. Senator J. C., Privacy Release Form, dated 18 January 2018, and accompanying documents, reflects the applicant’s spouse contacted the congressman indicating the spouse had a military dependent identification card, but had never received medical or dental assistance, exchange or commissary perks, or money from the applicant. The spouse indicated the applicant and the spouse were married on 6 September 2005 and the applicant left for Texas in May 2006. The spouse had not heard from the applicant since. The spouse desired to know if they were still married. Criminal Investigation Command (CID) Report of Investigation - Initial, dated 11 June 2013, reflects an investigation established probable cause to believe the applicant committed the offenses of False Official Statement; Larceny of government Property Over $500; and Fraud Against the United States Government in an Amount Over $500 when investigation revealed the applicant received Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) with Dependents since the applicant’s enlistment and Family Separation Allowance. The applicant was married to F. L., a German National, while enlisted in the U.S. Air Force. In May 2006, the applicant was discharged and returned to the U.S. without the spouse. According to F. L., May 2006 was the last time the spouse saw the applicant and had not received any money or support from the applicant. FG Article 15, dated 4 October 2013, for: The applicant between 20 and 30 June 2012, make to Captain (CPT) R. J., a false official statement, to wit: the applicant’s spouse was in Savannah with the applicant. The applicant between 20 and 30 June 2012, make to First Lieutenant B. D., a false official statement, to wit: the applicant’s spouse was living with the applicant in Georgetown. The applicant on 20 January 2013, make to Staff Sergeant C. G., a false official statement, to wit: the applicant and the applicant’s spouse were living in Savanah during the year 2012, but due to the upcoming deployment to Afghanistan, the applicant sent the spouse back to Germany to be with the spouse’s family while the applicant was deployed. The applicant, on 18 May 2013, make to CPT R. J., a false official statement, to wit: the last time the applicant saw the spouse was eight months ago. The applicant did from 1 October 2011 to 30 April 2013, steal money paid as Basic Allowance Housing, military property, of a value of over $500, the property of the U.S. Army. The applicant did from 1 March to 31 August 2013, steal money paid as Family Separation Pay, military property, of a value of over $500, the property of the U.S. Army. The applicant did on 22 June 2012, by preparing a voucher for presentation for payment, make a claim against the United States for a sum greater than $500 for Dislocation Allowance, which claim was false and fraudulent in a sum of greater than $500 in that the applicant claimed to be accompanied by a dependent. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4; forfeiture of $1,201 pay per month for two months; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 22 January 2014, regarding pending separation from the service. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 11 March 2014, reflects the applicant was cleared to participate in administrative proceedings. The Servicemember was seen at Marne Behavioral Health and the provider referred the applicant to the Traumatic Brain Injury clinic for an assessment. The applicant was responsible for the behavior and had the ability to distinguish right from wrong. The applicant was diagnosed with Depression with Anxiety. Report of Medical History, dated 12 March 2014, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Head Injury in rollover during deployment; Anxiety, currently in Behavioral Health. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; three character statements; Peach court Case Docket – Divorce; DoD Financial Management Regulation; Sworn Statement. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant, through third party statements, contends being a good parent while supporting a family; volunteering to be the head coach for the fiancé’s child’s baseball team; and being a dependable employee. 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 waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-1 Applies to: Person completing his or her term of active service who is considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. Eligibility: Qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. 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 reentry code for the discharge needs changed. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 601-201, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of “3.” There is no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or the RE code. An RE Code of “3” indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army’s needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. The applicant contends the Article 15, UCMJ, and the discharge were based on incorrect information. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) reflects the applicant was provided the opportunity to consult with counsel and the right to demand trial by court-martial before accepting punishment under Article 15, UCMJ. The applicant was provided a second opportunity to consult with counsel before being discharged from the Army. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service, including combat tours. The applicant contends being a good parent while supporting a family; volunteering to be the head coach for the fiancé’s child’s baseball team; and being a dependable employee. 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. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant’s good military service and/or good conduct 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 applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, PTSD, and Depression with Anxiety may mitigate the applicant’s basis of separation - false official statements and stealing money from the government. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, PTSD, Depression with Anxiety, and Chronic Adjustment Disorder existed during the applicant’s 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 applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, PTSD, Depression with Anxiety, and Chronic Adjustment Disorder do not mitigate the applicant’s basis of separation - Making a false official statement to an NCO and Officer, and stealing money paid as Basic Allowance Housing and Family Separation pay of over $500 as the applicant’s misconduct are not part of the sequela of symptoms associated with Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, PTSD, Depression with Anxiety, and Chronic Adjustment Disorder. (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 applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety, PTSD, Depression with Anxiety, and Chronic Adjustment Disorder did not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated misconduct – making false official statements and stealing money from the government. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention and determined that that a change to the narrative reason is not warranted because the Board determined that the basis of separation - making false official statements and stealing money from the government is serious misconduct. Therefore, the narrative reason if proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends the reentry code for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered and determined in accordance with Army Regulation 601-201, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE-3 because the applicant’s basis of separation - making false official statements and stealing money from the government involved serious misconduct. Therefore, no change is warranted. (3) The applicant contends the Article 15, UCMJ, and the discharge were based on incorrect information. The Board considered this contention and determined there is no supporting evidence in the applicant’s official record or provided by the applicant other than the applicant’s statement that the Command acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Rather, the applicant’s official record included contrary evidence, the applicant’s spouse’s statement, that supported the Command’s actions. Therefore, no change is warranted. (4) The applicant contends good service, including 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 lying to non- commissioned and commissioned Officer to cover up non-support of a spouse, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (5) The applicant contends being a good parent while supporting a family; volunteering to be the head coach for the fiancé’s child’s baseball team; and being a dependable employee. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s post-service conduct does not outweigh the applicant’s basis of separation - false official statements and stealing money from the government. 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, PTSD, Depression with Anxiety, and Chronic Adjustment Disorder did not outweigh the applicant’s medically unmitigated misconduct – making false official statements and stealing money from the government. The Board also considered the applicant’s contentions of impropriety related to the applicant’s Article 15 being based on erroneous information and found that there was no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions warranting a discharge upgrade. Finally, the Board considered the applicant’s contentions of inequity relating to the applicant’s good service, including combat and post service accomplishments and determined 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, 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 AR20210002698 1