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: 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, a false accusation was made against the applicant, which caused depression and anxiety. The applicant was sent to a mental institution for a few weeks after this incident. The applicant believes the applicant was not given the proper ground to fight the accusation by the command. The applicant worked with the supply platoon for three months before being accused of theft. The applicant fought the accusation and told the Battalion Commander the applicant was not a thief. The Commander gave the applicant extra duty and learned from the mistake. The unit deployed, but the applicant was forced to stay back in the rear with another unit. The new unit did not know the applicant’s situation, so leadership started the separation process. In a records review conducted on 7 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: 15 June 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 9 May 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 27 August 2016, the applicant wrongfully appropriated an AimPoint M-68 Combat Optic, the property of the United States Government. The applicant violated CAM Regulation 190-1, Paragraph 4-9(a) by wrongfully transporting an Aim-Point M-68 Combat Optic in privately owned vehicle. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 6 May 2017 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 26 May 2017 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 4 August 2015 / 3 years, 23 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 97 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 92F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist / 1 year, 10 months, 12 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Law Enforcement Report – 2nd Corrected - Final, dated 7 September 2016, reflects an investigation established the applicant committed the offense of Larceny of Government Property, Driver’s License Required, and Driving While License Suspended. On 27 August 2016, the applicant was issued two CVB Violation Notices and one FC 1502 (Control # 6656) suspending post driving privileges for twelve months and released to the unit. Law Enforcement Report – 2nd Corrected - Final, dated 6 August 2017, reflects an investigation established the applicant committed the offense of Driving While Post Privileges Suspended and Driver’s License Required. On 25 April 2017, the applicant was issued one CVB Violation Notices and one FC 1502 (Control # 71814) suspending post driving privileges for twelve months and released to the unit. FG Article 15, dated 28 November 2016, for violating a lawful general regulation to wit: paragraph 4-9(a), CAM Regulation 190-1, by wrongfully transporting an Aim-Point M-68 combat optic in privately owned vehicle; and wrongfully appropriate an Aim-Point M-68 combat optic of a value of about $336.00 (27 August 2016). The punishment page was not in file. Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 8 February 2017, 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 MSE was considered by the separation authority. Six Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 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 waivable and nonwaivable 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 waivable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the offenses leading to the discharge were false accusations. The AMHRR indicates the applicant committed discrediting offenses. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends the applicant was not given the proper help to fight the false accusations by the command. The evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting to Army standards by providing counseling and the imposition of non-judicial punishment. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends suffering from depression and anxiety. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a MSE on 8 February 2017, which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Acute Stress Reaction, Adjustment Disorder, Depression, and Anxiety. (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 Acute Stress Reaction and an Adjustment Disorder. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. ,After applying liberal consideration the Board Medical Advisor determined that there is no natural sequelae between the applicant’s Acute Stress Reaction, Adjustment Disorder, Depression, or Anxiety and the basis of applicant’s separation. There is no evidence that any of the applicant’s BH conditions were contributory to wrongfully appropriating and wrongfully transporting a Combat Optic since none of the conditions impact one’s ability to distinguish between right and wrong and act in accordance with the right. (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 Acute Stress Reaction, Adjustment Disorder, Depression, and Anxiety outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – wrongfully appropriated an AimPoint M-68 Combat Optic and wrongfully transporting an AimPoint M-68 Combat Optic in applicant’s personal vehicle. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the offenses leading to the discharge were false accusations and applicant was not given the proper help to fight the false accusations by the command. The Board considered this contention but found insufficient evidence in the applicant’s official file or provided by the applicant of the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. In this case, the Board determined that the applicant’s discharge is proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends suffering from depression and anxiety. The Board liberally considered this contention and determined that the applicant's Acute Stress Reaction, Adjustment Disorder, Depression, and Anxiety outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – wrongfully appropriated an AimPoint M-68 Combat Optic and wrongfully transporting an AimPoint M-68 Combat Optic in applicant’s personal vehicle.applicant’s depression and anxiety do not mitigate or excuse the applicant’s misconduct of wrongfully appropriating and wrongfully transporting an AimPoint M-68 Combat Optic in applicant’s personal vehicle. 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 Acute Stress Reaction, Adjustment Disorder, Depression, and Anxiety did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of wrongfully appropriating an AimPoint M-68 Combat Optic and wrongfully transporting an AimPoint M-68 Combat Optic in applicant’s personal vehicle. The Board also considered the applicant's contention regarding false accusations and the applicant's behavioral health condition and found that 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 AR20210002781 1