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 honorable. The applicant requests a narrative reason and Separation Designation (SPD) code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the negative remarks given by a civilian head nurse, on the officer evaluation record (OER) were not fair and unjustified. The applicant acted as a whistleblower, exposing the civilian head nurse’s unethical performance in the hospital ward to the Inspector General (IG) office. The applicant filed numerous complaints against the head nurse with the IG office. The head nurse gave the applicant negative remarks on the applicant’s OER to exact vengeance for the applicant’s actions against the head nurse. The negative counseling’s were all fabricated, without basis, and full of bias and prejudice. The applicant was never given copies of the numerous negative counseling’s. The applicant developed nightmares and ill-feelings toward the head nurse because of negative remarks on the applicant’s OER. The applicant’s service-connected disability, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), caused the applicant to be angry. The applicant served with excellence in delivering quality health care to everyone. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 19 July 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board change the narrative reason to Unsatisfactory Performance but otherwise denied the request upon finding the remaining portions of the discharge both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board’s decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2B / JNC / NA / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 6 April 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 8 July 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was identified by FY 2010, MAJ Army Nurse Corps (AN) Promotion selection Board to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2b for misconduct, moral, or professional dereliction, conduct unbecoming of an officer and for receiving adverse information filed in the Army Military Human Resource Record in accordance with AR 600-37, due to the following reasons: A series of substantiated derogatory activity resulting in a referred Officer Evaluation Report for the period 29 December 2008 through 15 May 2009, was permanently filed in the applicant’s OMPF. Conduct unbecoming an officer, AR 600-8-24 para 4-2b(8), which is detailed above. (3) Board of Inquiry (BOI): On 12 October 2011, a Board of Inquiry recommended the applicant be separated from the military with an honorable conditions characterization of service. LTG J. concurred with the board’s recommendation. (4) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 6 January 2012, the GOSCA recommended disapproval of the applicant’s request for retention and recommend the applicant be involuntarily eliminated from service / Honorable. (5) DA Board of Review for Eliminations: On 15 February 2012, the Army Board of Review for Eliminations considered the GOSCA’s request to involuntary separate the applicant for substandard performance in accordance with AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 5 March 2012 / Honorable 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 24 January 2004 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment: / Education: 44 / Master’s Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-3 / 66C, Psychiatric / Mental Health Nurse / 8 years, 2 months, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii, Korea, SWA / Iraq (20 March 2006 – 4 July 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2, MUC-2, PUC, ASUA, NDSM, SWASM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR-2 g. Performance Ratings: 18 September 2004 – 19 March 2006 / Best Qualified 20 March 2006 – 2 January 2010 / Fully Qualified 29 June 2006 – 22 February 2007 / Best Qualified 3 January 2010 – 17 December 2010 / Fully Qualified 17 December 2010 – 31 May 2011 / Best Qualified 31 May 2011 – 1 April 2012 / Fully Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers, dated 12 October 2011, reflects the investigating officer found: The applicant had a series of substantiated derogatory activity resulting in a referred Officer Evaluation Report for the period 29 December 2008 through 15 May 2009, which was filed in the applicant Official Military Personnel File. This derogatory activity includes the applicant less than average performance during this rated period, lack of leadership and involvement while performing as charge nurse, and failure to remediate after multiple attempts of counseling resulting in direct supervision from superiors. The Board further finds the applicant had a series of substantiated derogatory activity, and this activity constituted conduct unbecoming an officer. The applicant's acts or omissions constituting conduct unbecoming an officer were lack of demonstrated performance for a professional with 20 years of nursing experience between the applicant’s civilian and military employment, and the applicant lack of demonstrated leadership skills, both of which constituted discredit to the officer corps. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of a VA benefits authorization, dated 7 September 2017, reflecting the applicant had a service- connected condition for PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; VA Benefits Authorization. 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 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. (1) Paragraph 1-23, provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 1-23a, states an officer will normally receive an honorable characterization of service when the quality of the officer’s service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty, or the final revocation of a security clearance under DODI 5200.02 and AR 380-67 for reasons that do not involve acts of misconduct for an officer. (3) Paragraph 1-23b, states an officer will normally receive a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service when the officer’s military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A separation under general (under honorable conditions) normally appropriate when an officer: Submits an unqualified resignation; Separated based on misconduct; discharged for physical disability resulting from intentional misconduct or neglect; and, for final revocation of a security clearance. (4) Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty. (5) Paragraph 4-2b, prescribes for the elimination of an officer for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interests of national security. (6) Paragraph 4-20a (previously 4-24a), states an officer identified for elimination may, at any time during or prior to the final action in the elimination case elect one of the following options: Submit a resignation in lieu of elimination; request a discharge in lieu of elimination; and, Apply for retirement in lieu of elimination if otherwise eligible. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of “JNC” as the appropriate code to assign commissioned officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b, unacceptable conduct. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests a narrative reason and Separation Designation (SPD) code change. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) 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 4, paragraph 4-2b, AR 600-8-24 with a honorable 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. The 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. The 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 the negative remarks given by a civilian head nurse, on the officer evaluation record (OER) were not fair and justified, also was never given copies of the numerous negative counseling’s. The applicant acted as a whistleblower, exposing the civilian head nurse’s unethical performance in the hospital ward to the Inspector General (IG) office. The applicant filed numerous complaints against the head nurse with the IG office. The head nurse gave the applicant negative remarks on the applicant’s OER to exact vengeance for the applicant’s actions against the head nurse. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant’s issues regarding the OER does not 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 good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The applicant contends the VA has granted a service-connected disability for PTSD. The available medical evidence in the AMHRR is void of any indication the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during the discharge processing. The applicant provided a copy of a VA benefits authorization, dated 7 September 2017, reflecting the applicant had a service- connected condition for PTSD. 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: Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, PTSD, and Major Depression. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found in-service BH diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, 100% service-connected for PTSD, Major Depression. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that while the applicant’s BH diagnoses factor into the misconduct, it does not completely dismiss it or expunge the bases of separation – substantiated derogatory activity to include less than average performance, lack of leadership and involvement, and failure to remediate after multiple attempts of counseling. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that any of the applicant’s medical conditions of Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, 100% service- connection for PTSD, Major Depression, outweighed the bases for applicant’s separation – substantiated derogatory activity to include less than average performance, lack of leadership and involvement, and failure to remediate after multiple attempts of counseling. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason/SPD code for the discharge needs changed. The Board determined that in light of severity of the applicant’s bases for separation – substantiated derogatory activity to include less than average performance, lack of leadership and involvement, and failure to remediate after multiple attempts of counseling, relief was not warranted. (2) The applicant contends the negative remarks given by a civilian head nurse, on the officer evaluation record (OER) were not fair and unjustified, also was never given copies of the numerous negative counseling’s. The Board considered this contention, however, the Board determined that there is no evidence in official records, and the applicant did not provide supporting documentation to provide merit to the claim. Ultimately, the Board determined that the assertion alone did not outweigh the basis of separation due to the severity of the offenses (3) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board 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. With the bases for applicant’s separation – substantiated derogatory activity to include less than average performance, lack of leadership and involvement, and failure to remediate after multiple attempts of counseling, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation (4) The applicant contends the VA has granted a service-connected disability for PTSD. The ADRB is not bound by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decisions. There is no law or regulation which requires that an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the Board determination that there was a condition or experience that existed during the applicant’s time in service. The Board must also articulate the nexus between that condition or experience and the basis for separation. Then, the Board must determine that the condition or experience outweighed the basis for separation. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former service member is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the ARBA when determining a member’s discharge characterization. In this case, the Board determined that the applicant’s PTSD diagnosis did not outweighed the bases for applicant’s separation – substantiated derogatory activity to include less than average performance, lack of leadership and involvement, and failure to remediate after multiple attempts of counseling. 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 characterization of service due to it already being Honorable. (2) The Board voted to change the applicant’s reason for discharge because the applicant was involuntarily separated for (less than average performance, lack of leadership and involvement, and failure to remediate after multiple attempts of counseling) which better fits the AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2 description of unsatisfactory performance instead of unacceptable conduct. A change to Secretarial Authority was denied as the applicant was involuntarily separated for performance that was unstatisfactroy and the applicant’s PTSD and other diagnoses do not fully excuse the entirety of the applicant’s responsibility for the misconduct. Therefore, the Board determined that Secretarial Authority, which is exercised sparingly when no other authority is available, is not warranted because the Unacceptable Conduct narrative applies in this case. (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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Substandard Performance / No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2 A / JNC / NA / Honorable 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 AR20210002776 1