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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge was horribly flawed and biased. The lack of detail and failure to provide evidence is obvious in the investigation records. The applicant has evidence the investigator in the case is either a liar or was gravely mistaken. The applicant losing the GI Bill benefits greatly affects the applicant mentally and has been depressing knowing the applicant cannot use benefits to attend school. The applicant was coping with serious depression issues, which still linger. The applicant was depressed, confused, allowed a foreign girl to take advantage of the applicant. The applicant’s supervisor’s letter reflects the applicant was not alone with highlighting the toxic environment within the command. The applicant believes the entire process was extremely one-sided, the applicant was denied a court-martial, and communicated with the investigators with the lawyer present. The applicant spoke with investigators alone, chose to waive rights and provide testimony, but receded because of the aggressive tone and one-sidedness of the conversation. The applicant offered to meet the investigators with a lawyer, but the meeting never occurred. The investigators and prosecutors used every shortcut at their disposal in the case against the applicant, and did so while hardly building a case. The applicant was later informed by the first sergeant of administrative separations. The applicant was told by the Investigator the applicant owed United Services Automobile Association (USAA) thousands of dollars for missed payments. The investigator used this as the applicant’s motive to produce a false statement, this accusation was simply not true. The applicant provides a letter from USAA explaining the applicant’s claim was accepted and paid. The original charge sheet shows two of the charges were dropped without explanation. The two charges simply cannot coexist because they contradict each other. The applicant states the separation was in violation of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-2c, which states, commanders will not take action instead of disciplinary action solely to spare an individual who may have committed serious misconduct from the harsher penalties, may be imposed under the UCMJ. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 19 July 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: 16 September 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 6 July 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 2 March 2016, the applicant made a false official statement and, on 10 March 2015, the applicant displayed insubordinate conduct towards a non-commissioned officer (NCO). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 12 July 2016 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 10 August 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 26 February 2013 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / HS Graduate / 113 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 89D10, EOD Specialist / 3 years, 6 months 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Law Enforcement Report – Final, dated 5 May 2016, reflects the Judge Advocate General (JAG) opined there was sufficient evidence to believe the applicant committed the offenses of False Official Statement, Operating an Unregistered Privately Owned Vehicle, and Operating an Uninsured Privately Owned Vehicle. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 16 June 2016, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with unspecified mood disorder (history) work stress. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (online); DA Form 2708; third-party letters; USAA Manager for International Policy Service letters; Allied Solutions letter; Praetorian Insurance Company Settlement Summary; USAA International Operations letter; self-authored statement. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities’ last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember’s date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 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-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 personal issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. There is no evidence in the Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) the applicant ever sought assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends the discharge was horribly flawed and biased. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant states the separation was in violation of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-2c, which states, commanders will not take action instead of disciplinary action solely to spare an individual who may have committed serious misconduct from the harsher penalties, may be imposed under the UCMJ. The applicant contends the investigator’s lack of detail and failure to provide evidence are obvious in investigation records. Board will consider this contention and apply it specifically to the applicant’s case and vote on the impropriety, if warranted. The applicant contends the applicant was depressed and confused. The applicant’s AMHRR contains documentation which supports a diagnosis of in-service unspecified mood disorder (history) work stress. The record shows the applicant underwent a MSE on 16 June 2016, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. Eligibility for veteran’s benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The applicant contends good service. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The third party statement provided with the application speaks highly of the applicant. It recognizes the applicant’s 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 Adjustment Disorder, unspecified mood disorder, Major Depression, PTSD may mitigate the applicant’s discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, unspecified mood disorder, Major Depression, PTSD, and MST existed/occurred during service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that that the applicant’s PTSD/MST partially mitigates the applicant’s insubordinate conduct towards an NCO basis of separation as insubordination can be part of the sequela of symptoms associated with PTSD. However, the Board Medical Advisor found that the applicant’s behavioral health conditions and MST do not mitigate the applicant’s making a false official statement basis of separation as the applicant’s false statement involved a premeditated plan and behavior that was willfully and consciously planned over time and not an impulsive act. Filing a false insurance claim for a stolen vehicle, admitting to abandoning the car in Grafenwöhr, and then driving the applicant’s other car to the Czech and filing a police report there claiming the car had been stolen has no nexus with PTSD or MST and is not a mitigating factor for this misconduct. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board’s Medical Advisor’s opine, the Board determined that the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, unspecified mood disorder, Major Depression, PTSD/MST did not outweigh the partially medically mitigated basis for applicant’s separation – false official statement – specifically filing a false insurance claim for a stolen vehicle, admitting to abandoning the car in Grafenwöhr, and then driving the applicant’s other car to the Czech and filing a police report there claiming the car had been stolen. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends personal issues affected behavior and ultimately caused the discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s detailed false report attempting insurance fraud is not an acceptable response to dealing with personal issues. Thus, the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (2) The applicant contends the discharge was horribly flawed and bias. The Board considered this contention and determined that, based on the applicant’s official records and the documentation provided by the applicant, the weight of the evidence does not support a conclusion that the Command acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Therefore, the discharge is proper and equitable. (3) The applicant contends the investigator’s lack of detail and failure to provide evidence are obvious in investigation records. The Board considered this contention and determined that, based on the applicant’s official records and the documentation provided by the applicant, the weight of the evidence does not support a conclusion that the Command acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Therefore, no change is warranted. (4) The applicant was depressed and confused. The Board liberally considered this contention, the Board determined that the applicant’s behavioral conditions did not outweigh the partially medically mitigated basis for applicant’s separation - false official statement – specifically filing a false insurance claim for a stolen vehicle, admitting to abandoning the car in Grafenwöhr, and then driving the applicant’s other car to the Czech and filing a police report there claiming the car had been stolen. Thus, the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. (5) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. The Board determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare or VA loans, do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. (6) The applicant contends good service. The Board considered and determined that the totality of the applicant’s service record does not warrant a discharge upgrade. (7) The applicant contends that if the applicant’s Command thought he was a criminal, the Command should have sent the applicant to court instead of an administrative separation, which the applicant claims was in violation of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-2c which states, commanders will not take action instead of disciplinary action solely to spare an individual who may have committed serious misconduct from the harsher penalties, may be imposed under the UCMJ. The Board considered this contention and determined that, there is insufficient evidence in the applicant’s record or provided by the applicant that the Command acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner regarding the decision to initiate separation instead of referring the applicant’s case to a court-martial. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is not warranted. (8) The applicant contends the investigator’s lack of detail and failure to provide evidence are obvious in investigation records. The Board considered this contention and determined that, there is insufficient evidence in the applicant’s record or provided by the applicant that the investigation related to the applicant’s case was improper. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is not warranted. 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, the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, unspecified mood disorder, Major Depression, PTSD/MST did not outweigh the partially medically mitigated basis for applicant’s separation - false official statement – specifically filing a false insurance claim for a stolen vehicle, admitting to abandoning the car in Grafenwöhr, and then driving the applicant’s other car to the Czech and filing a police report there claiming the car had been stolen. The Board also considered the applicant’s contentions of impropriety relating to the flawed investigation and bias involved in the discharge proceeding 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 regarding the applicant’s good service and medical conditions 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, 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 AR20210002714 1