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, through counsel, requests an upgrade to honorable, a change to the discharge narrative reason, and the SPD code. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant enlisted on 8 November 2000 as a Human Intelligence Collector and served as an enlisted Soldier until 23 November 2010, when the applicant accepted an appointment as a Reserve Warrant Officer. During training at Fort Huachuca, the applicant discovered a married officer was having a relationship with a staff member of the hotel where the officers were staying. There was a policy against fraternizing between the Soldiers and the staff. The applicant informed the officer’s instructors and the hotel manager. The staff member was terminated, and in retaliation, fabricated information claiming the applicant was the person the staff member had a relationship with, although the training environment made it impossible. The applicant was denied graduation and the information was forwarded to the applicant’s chain of command at Fort Drum. The applicant’s security clearance was placed on hold, making it impossible for the applicant to perform the job or deploy with the applicant’s Soldiers. The applicant was given busy work until permitted not to come to work because there was nothing for the applicant to do. The applicant was informed the applicant would receive a letter of reprimand, which would disappear from the applicant’s record once the applicant received a permanent change of station (PCS). Someone in Afghanistan “accidently” revoked the applicant’s security clearance, making it impossible for the applicant to PCS. The applicant tried to commit suicide by overdosing on the spouse’s pain medication from a recent back surgery. A few days later, the applicant failed a company urinalysis and admitted to the suicide attempt. The chaplain and commander believed the applicant should be evaluated, and the applicant was admitted to a mental health facility where the doctor indicated the applicant suffered from severe depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The applicant believed a medical review would be required, but before the review was completed, the applicant was informed the command was pursuing a discharge. The applicant received a 50 percent service-connected disability rating for PTSD with major depressive disorder, effective 9 November 2013, the day after discharge. The applicant should have been processed simultaneously for administrative separation and physical disability evaluation and the case forwarded to the Secretary of the Army to decide the proper disposition. The applicant’s conduct was honorable up until a single instance of misconduct. The applicant served in the enlisted ranks, earning numerous awards, including combat service. The stress of the false accusation, months of frustration, and inability to do the applicant’s job while awaiting disposition of the accusation, combined with severe depression and PTSD caused the applicant to use controlled substances to take the applicant’s own life. The applicant requests an upgrade and a narrative reason and a separation code change. The applicant further details the contentions in a self-authored statement submitted with the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 18 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, Paragraph 4-2b / JNC / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 6 November 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 17 June 2013 (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), (8), and 11 because of acts of personal misconduct: The applicant engaged in an adulterous relationship from May 2012 to July 2012, and subsequently lied to Military Police Investigations (MPI). Series of substantiated derogatory activity resulting in a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 21 November 2012. The applicant was reprimanded because: The applicant was involved in a sexual relationship with a person who was not the applicant’s spouse. The applicant made two false sworn statements to MPI, denying the applicant sent sexually explicit pictures of the applicant to the person and had a sexual relationship with the person. Conduct unbecoming an officer as indicated by the above-referenced GOMOR. The applicant wrongfully used oxymorphone. (3) Legal Consultation Date: NIF On 19 July 2013, the applicant requested retention on active duty to allow the applicant to be processed through the medical evaluation board, in the alternative, be discharged with an honorable discharge. On 31 July 2013, the battalion commander recommended retention because the evidence presented did not substantiate reason for elimination and if separated, an honorable discharge. On 13 August 2013, brigade commander recommended elimination with an honorable discharge. (4) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 6 September 2013, the GOSCA recommended the applicant be involuntarily eliminated from service / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (5) DA Board of Review for Eliminations: On 10 October 2013, the Army Ad Hoc Review Board considered the GOSCA’s request to involuntary separate the applicant for misconduct and moral or professional dereliction in accordance with AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4- 2b. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 10 October 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 2 December 2010 / Indefinite / The applicant had 6 years active duty commitment upon successful completion of Warrant Officer Candidate Course (WOCC). b. Age at Appointment / Education: 30 / Associate’s Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: W-2 / 351M, Human Intelligence Technician / 12 years, 11 months, 29 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 8 November 2000 – 7 June 2006 / HD RA, 8 June 2006 – 1 December 2010 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Afghanistan (1 January 2009 – 9 December 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-2CS, MSM, ARCOM-3, AAM-2, MUC, AGCM-3, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-2, MOVSM, NATOMDL, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 2 December 2010 – 19 April 2012 / Best Qualified 20 April 2012 – 30 November 2012 / Fully Qualified 1 December 2012 – 31 October 2013 / Do Not Promote h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Sierra Vista Police Department, dated 14 July 2012, reflects E. B. reported being harassed by the applicant. Sierra Vista Injunction Against Harassment, dated 16 July 2012, was issued against the applicant and the applicant was given an order to have no contact with E. B. The description provided by E. B. for the reason for the order was the applicant was crouched down by E.B.’s car when E. B. got off work; left a note on E. B.’s car at E. B’s home address; made erratic text messages to E. B.; and contacted E. B.’s. employer with false information to have E. B. fired. Memorandum for Record, subject: Allegations of Misconduct by Advanced Source Operations (ASOC) Student, dated 30 July 2012, reflects on 24 July 2012, the Humint Training – Joint Center of Excellence (HT-JCOE) Senior Enlisted Advisor (SEA) received a call from the Director of Emergency Services (DES) and the Fort Huachuca, AZ, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate in reference to an Injunction Against Harassment for the applicant, an ASOC student. It was reported by E. B., the applicant and E. B. had a sexual relationship for two months and the applicant was suicidal. The applicant denied the allegations. On 27 July 2012, the applicant was removed from the ASOC graduation for engaging in an inappropriate relationship and for poor operational judgment and suitability. Informal AR 15-6 Investigation Findings and Recommendations, dated 17 October 2012, reflects the investigation officer found: There was a strong corroboration of evidence indicating the applicant did text E. B. many times from 14 June to 13 July 2012. The strong sexual nature of the texts between E. B. and the applicant’s number including two photos of genitals, indicated the two were in a relationship which was more than casual. Additionally, E. B.’s knowledge of the applicant’s tattoos indicated the possibility of intimacy between the two. The poems and the source of the notes could not be corroborated. The evidence available indicated the existence of a relationship between E. B. and the applicant of a sexual nature conducted through communications over the phone. The Investigating Officer recommended a brigade letter of reprimand for violation of Article 133, conduct unbecoming an officer and the applicant be removed from current position and placed where the applicant could be better supervised. The appointing authority recommended suspension of security clearance and a GOMOR. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 21 November 2012, reflects the applicant was engaged in adulterous relationship and subsequently lying under oath to MPI. From May to July 2012, the applicant had a sexual relationship with a person not the applicant’s spouse while attending the Army Advanced Source Operation Course (ASOC) in Sierra Vista, AZ. After the relationship ended the person obtained a restraining order against the applicant and the ASOC command denied the applicant’s graduation. Further, the applicant made two sworn statements to MPI, denying the applicant sent sexually explicit pictures of the applicant to the person and the applicant had a sexual relationship with the person. The applicant submitted a rebuttal statement. The issuing authority directed the GOMOR be filed locally for a period of three years or until departure from the command. Memorandum, subject: Positive urinalysis Notification (Post MRO Review), dated 9 May 2013, reflects the applicant tested positive for OXMOR 162 (oxymorphone), during an Inspection Random (IR) – Test Info B, urinalysis testing, conducted on 2 April 2013. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 10 May 2013, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Currently being seen for depression, PTSD, anger issues. Recent inpatient for suicide attempt at the Soldiers and Sailors Hospital. The current diagnosis on AHLTA states Adjustment Disorder. Report of Medical Examination, dated 10 May 2013, the examining medical physician noted in the summary of defects and diagnoses section: Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 26 June 2013, reflects the applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Occupational Problem. It was possible the applicant was experiencing an adjustment disorder at the time the applicant reported making a suicide attempt. The applicant was experiencing occupational stress, but the examining physician did not believe the symptoms warranted the diagnosis of a mental illness which would permanently disqualify the applicant from military service. Letter from J. B., Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner, Behavioral Health Department, 12 July 2013, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with Major Depression, single episode, moderate and rule out PTSD. The applicant was being assessed as to whether the applicant would need an upcoming MEB based on the Axis I psychiatric conditions. The letter states it was customary to provide a 90 day treatment period to make an MEB recommendation and the applicant had been in treatment since 9 May 2013. The applicant provided the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) eBenefits webpage, dated 2 August 2017, which reflects the applicant was rated 50 percent service-connected disability for post-traumatic stress disorder with major depressive disorder (also claimed as nightmare disorder, anxiety, chronic insomnia, and sleep disorder). The applicant was rated 100 percent total combined disability. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Two DD Forms 214; DD Form 293; Legal Brief; self- authored statement; VA eBenefits webpage. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends maintaining employment at a software company, with a promotion, and Hilton; attaining a Bachelor’s Degree in Criminal Justice, graduating Magna Cum Laude, and a Master’s in Business Administration; and pursuing the dream of becoming a police officer. 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) Paragraph 1-25b states that commissioned or warrant officers referred for elimination action who have been issued a P3/P4 DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile) will be processed through the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) system pursuant to AR 635-40 when an investigation chargeable under the UCMJ ends without charges. If PEB finds the officer fit for duty, the Army Physical Disability Agency Review Boards (DASA (RB)) approves the findings and the Commander, Human Resources Command processes the elimination action. If the PEB finds the officer unfit, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army determines whether the officer elimination action or medical retirement is appropriate. Officers pending administrative elimination are normally dual processed for the elimination action and completion of the Disability Evaluation System. For dual processing to occur, referral to the MEB must occur before the date the DASA (RB) approves the officer’s elimination pursuant to AR 635–40. (5) Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty. (6) Paragraph 4-2b, prescribes for the elimination of an officer for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interests of national security. (7) 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 “miscellaneous." 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. 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 PTSD and severe depression affected behavior which led to the discharge. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) shows: The applicant was diagnosed with major depression, single episode, moderate and rule out PTSD and was being assessed whether the applicant would need a MEB based on the Axis I psychiatric conditions. The applicant underwent a medical examination on 10 May 2013, which reflects the examining medical physician noted in the summary of defects and diagnoses section: Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood. The medical examination was considered by the separation authority. The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 26 June 2013, which reflects the applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Occupational Problem. It was possible the applicant was experiencing an adjustment disorder at the time the applicant reported making a suicide attempt. The applicant was experiencing occupational stress, but the examining physician did not believe the symptoms warranted the diagnosis of a mental illness which would permanently disqualify the applicant from military service. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends being rated 50 percent service-connected disability for PTSD, with major depressive disorder by the VA. The applicant provided evidence, which reflects the applicant was rated 50 percent service-connected disability for post-traumatic stress disorder with major depressive disorder (also claimed as nightmare disorder, anxiety, chronic insomnia, and sleep disorder). The applicant was rated 100 percent total combined disability. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. AR 600-8-24, paragraph 1-23 stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends being innocent of the allegation of fraternization. The AMHRR reflects a 15-6 investigation was conducted regarding the allegations and the Investigating Officer found there was preponderance of the evidence to corroborate that the applicant fraternized with the staff member. 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 contents that because the applicant was suffering from PTSD and severe depression, the applicant should have been processed simultaneously under the administrative separation proceedings and the physical disability system. AR 600-8-24, paragraph 1-25b, in effect at the time, states that commissioned or warrant officers referred for elimination action who have been issued a P3/P4 DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile) will be processed through the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) system pursuant to AR 635-40 when an investigation chargeable under the UCMJ ends without charges. If PEB finds the officer fit for duty, the Army Physical Disability Agency Review Boards (DASA (RB)) approves the findings and the Commander, Human Resources Command processes the elimination action. If the PEB finds the officer unfit, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army determines whether the officer elimination action or medical retirement is appropriate. Officers pending administrative elimination are normally dual processed for the elimination action and completion of the Disability Evaluation System. For dual processing to occur, referral to the MEB must occur before the date the DASA (RB) approves the officer’s elimination pursuant to AR 635–40. The applicant’s official records do not reflect that the applicant was issued a P3/P4 Profile prior to the DASA approving the applicant’s discharge. 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. The applicant contends maintaining employment at a software company, with a promotion, and the Hilton; attaining a Bachelor’s Degree in Criminal Justice, graduating Magna Cum Laude, and a Master’s in Business Administration; and pursuing the dream of becoming a police officer. 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 the following diagnoses or experiences which can, under certain circumstances, potentially mitigate or excuse misconduct leading to separation: PTSD, Major Depression, and Adjustment Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant was diagnosed in service with Major Depression and Adjustment Disorder. The applicant is also diagnosed and service connected by the VA 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 applicant’s PTSD and Major Depression mitigate the applicant’s drug use due to the nexus between PTSD/Major Depression and self-medicating with substances. However, the applicant’s offenses of having an extra-marital affair and making false sworn statements are not associated with any of applicant’s behavioral conditions and there is no evidence that any of the applicant’s behavior conditions contributed to this misconduct. (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, that while the applicant’s PTSD and Major Depression mitigated the applicant’s drug use, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD, Major Depression, Adjustment Disorder outweighed the applicant’s medically unmitigated offenses – having an extramarital affair and making false sworn statements during the investigation into the applicant’s misconduct. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends PTSD and severe depression affected behavior which led to the discharge. In this case, the Board liberally considered this contention and determined that, that while the applicant’s PTSD and Major Depression mitigated the applicant’s drug use, the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD, Major Depression, Adjustment Disorder outweighed the applicant’s medically unmitigated offense– having an extramarital affair and making false sworn statements during the investigation into the applicant’s misconduct. The Board also considered the applicant’s behavioral health conditions when considering the totality of the applicant’s record and determined that a discharge upgrade is not warranted based on the applicant’s severity of the applicant’s offense – having an extramarital affair and making a false sworn statement to cover up the applicant’s misconduct. (2) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident, and the applicant had good conduct including combat 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. By having an extramarital affair and lying during the investigation to follow, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (3) The applicant contends being innocent of the allegation of fraternization. The Board considered this contention and found, while reviewing the applicant provided evidence, that this contention contradicted the evidence. Specifically, the phone records and pictures exchanged, as well as the accuser’s knowledge of the applicant’s specific tattoos, insinuate that the contact between the two was more than the applicant is attempting to illustrate. (4) The applicant contends the applicant should have been processed simultaneously under the administrative separation proceedings and the physical disability system. The Board considered this contention and determined that, based on AR 600-8-24 paragraph 1-15b, that the applicant did not have a P3/P4 Profile referring the applicant to an MEB prior to the DASA (RB) approving the applicant’s elimination on 10 October 2013. Therefore, the applicant’s discharge is proper and a discharge upgrade is not warranted. Furthermore, even if the applicant had been in the MEB process, those proceedings would have halted while investigation into the misconduct was conducted. Since there is evidence of serious misconduct, the medical proceedings would have ceased as MEB proceedings do not outweigh an individual’s misconduct, if severe enough. (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 maintaining employment at a software company, with a promotion, and the Hilton; attaining a Bachelor’s Degree in Criminal Justice, graduating Magna Cum Laude, and a Master’s in Business Administration; and pursuing the dream of becoming a police officer. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s post- service accomplishments did not outweigh the seriousness of the applicant’s offenses - having an extramarital affair and making a false sworn statement to cover up the applicant’s misconduct. 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, the applicant’s PTSD and Major Depression only mitigated the applicant’s drug use. The available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD, Major Depression, Adjustment Disorder outweighed the applicant’s medically unmitigated offense – having an extramarital affair and making false sworn statements during the investigation into the applicant’s misconduct. The Board also considered the applicant’s impropriety contention regarding the applicant not being processed for administrative separation and physical disability evaluation and found that the applicant’s discharge was proper because there is no evidence that the applicant was referred to the MEB prior to final action on the applicant’s discharge as required by AR 600-8-24. The Board also considered the applicant’s good service, length of service, post-service accomplishments and contentions related to the applicant’s misconduct being an isolated incident and that the applicant was falsely accused of the misconduct that was the basis for the applicant’s discharge and determined that the totality of the applicant’s record does not support 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 AR20210002709 1