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 under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 14 years and 9 months of service, with no other adverse action. Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 1, states "a discharge under other than honorable conditions normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. However, the separation authority may direct a higher discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record during the current enlistment." The applicant claims that applicant served three consecutive enlistments, with no acts of misconduct on the applicant's record or adverse action. Chapter 3-7(2)(c) states "An honorable discharge may be furnished when disqualifying entries in the Soldier's military record are outweighed by subsequent honest and faithful service over a greater period of time during current term of Service. It is the pattern of behavior and not the isolated incident that should be considered for the characterization of service." The applicant claims that applicant served as a noncommissioned officer (NCO) and as an ambassador while living the Army Values. The applicant asserts that applicant served three deployments to Iraq, for which the applicant was awarded an Army Commendation Medal. The applicant claims that applicant received a Joint Service Achievement Medal for providing health care on two deployments for the Iraqi Army. The applicant claims that applicant was awarded the Sergeant Audie Murphy Award, a distinction earned by fewer than 8 percent of the NCOs in the Army. While the Army transitioned to the Profession of Arms and encouraged the total Soldier concept, the applicant claims that applicant fulfilled the requirement. The applicant asserts that applicant obtained a Bachelor's Degree in Legal Studies. The applicant claims that the Department of the Army recognized the applicant's potential by selecting the applicant for promotion to Sergeant First Class. The applicant claims that applicant served the surrounding communities on each assignment. During the assignment at Fort Polk, LA, the applicant claims that applicant assisted in the humanitarian efforts of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina and was awarded a Humanitarian Medal. During the assignment at Fort Meade, MD, the applicant claims that applicant supported the House of Ruth, a shelter for battered women, serving meals and aiding as needed. In Korea, the applicant claims that applicant was the battalion volunteer representative, as well as serving various homeless shelters and soup kitchens. The applicant claims that applicant acted as a traveling liaison during the Special Olympics. The applicant claims that applicant understood Army Soldiers served the country on many levels. The applicant claims that character references from NCOs, Officers, Soldiers, and civilians will speak to the applicant's character, which includes the applicant's former supervisors and Soldiers the applicant coached and mentored to the positions of leadership. The applicant claims that one thing which should stand out is the applicant served to serve others. The applicant claims that applicant received various awards and was recognized by the Republic of Korea Army for the applicant's constant work with the Korean Augmentee to the United States of America (KATUSA) program. The applicant claims that all, in the applicant's humble opinion, were served with the utmost honor and respect for the country and the Army. The applicant claims that applicant understands the discharge and the seriousness of the incident, but the one incident should not overshadow the many years of honorable service to the country, the Soldiers, and the Army. The applicant requests a review of the records, consideration of the character references, and to upgrade the discharge. In a records review conducted on 28 June 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 31 July 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date and Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): On 12 May 2017, the applicant was charged with: Charge I: Violating Article 121, UCMJ, The Specification: Between 4 October 2012 and 12 October 2016, steal U.S. Currency, military property, of a value of more than $500, the property of the U.S. Government. Charge II: Violating Article 107, UCMJ: Specification 1: On 4 October 2012, with intent to deceive, sign an official document, to wit: DA Form 5960, which document was false in that it listed the applicant's dependent child as living in Brooklyn, NY. Specification 2: On 9 October 2012, with intent to deceive, sign an official document, to wit: DD Form 1561, which document was false in that it listed the applicant's dependent child as living in Brooklyn, NY, and the dependent child was not in the legal custody of another person when the applicant received military orders. Specification 3: On 12 October 2012, with intent to deceive, sign an official document, to wit: DD Form 1351-2, which document was false in that it listed the applicant's dependent child as living in Brooklyn, NY. Specification 4: On 12 October 2016, with intent to deceive, sign an official document, to wit: DD Form 1351-2, which document was false in that the applicant was not accompanied by the applicant's dependent child from Brooklyn, NY. Specification 5: On 12 October 2016, with intent to deceive, sign an official document, to wit: DA Form 5960, which document was false in that it listed the applicant's dependent child did not reside with the applicant. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 28 June 2017 (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial: (4) Recommended Characterization: NIF (5) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 21 June 2017 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 25 October 2013 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 31 / Bachelor's Degree / 110 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 68W30, Health Care Specialist / 14 years, 9 months, 8 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 23 October 2002 - 5 October 2005 / HD RA, 6 October 2005 - 24 December 2008 / HD RA, 25 December 2008 - 24 October 2013 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Iraq (20 August 2003 - 23 March 2004; 1 September 2006 - 23 March 2007; 17 May 2008 - 4 July 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-7, JSAM, AAM-11, MUC, AGCM-4, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, KDSM, HSM, ICM-3CS, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-4, MOVSM g. Performance Ratings: 2 June 2013 - 1 June 2014 / Among the Best 1 June 2014 - 2 May 2015 / Among the Best 2 May 2015 - 30 April 2016 / Most Qualified 1 May 2016 - 30 August 2016 / Highly Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The Charge Sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c. Criminal Investigation Command (CID) Law Enforcement Report - Final, dated 24 March 2017, reflects an investigation established probable cause to believe the applicant committed the offense of BAH Fraud, Larceny, and False Official Statement when between October 2012 and October 2016, the applicant claimed the dependent child, Ms. R.H., resided in Brooklyn, NY, when the dependent child was enrolled in the Tricare South Region during the timeframe with a Texas address. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; Enlisted Record Brief; Memorandum, FY16 Sergeant First Class Promotion Selection Board; VA Letter; Letter of Commendation; ARCOM Certificate - Induction into the Sergeant Audie Murphy Club; 21 third- party character references. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the applicant. 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), dated 25 September 2019, 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) Paragraph 3-7c states Under other-than-honorable-conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (5) Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. (6) Paragraph 10-8a stipulates a discharge under other than honorable conditions normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record during the current enlistment. (See chap 3, sec II.) (7) Paragraph 10b stipulates Soldiers who have completed entry-level status, characterization of service as honorable is not authorized unless the Soldier's record is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization clearly would be improper. 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 "KFS" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. 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-4 applies to a person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation, or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 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 event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. 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 AMHRR reflects the applicant was charged with signing official documents, which were false, on six occasions between 4 October 2012 and 12 October 2016 that resulted in over $140,000 of fraudulent BAH payments to the applicant. 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 third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant's good military service. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. 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. Applicant was diagnosed in service with ADHD, Adjustment Disorder, and Depression, post-service with Major Depression and PTSD, that may mitigate the basis for applicant's separation. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found in-service BH diagnoses of ADHD, Adjustment Disorder, and Depression and military service connection for Major Depression and PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. After reviewing the available information and in accordance with the 3 Sep 2014 Hagel Liberal Consideration Memorandum and the 25 Aug 2017 Clarifying Guidance, it is the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor that while the applicant has PTSD, ADHD, Adjustment Disorder and Major Depression, none of these conditions mitigate applicant's Larceny, BAH Fraud, and making a False Official Statement because none of these acts of misconduct are part of the sequela of symptoms associated with PTSD or other BH conditions. Rather, applicant's misconduct is willful, conscious behavior, perpetrated over time (four years) that has no nexus with applicant's BH diagnoses. (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, and voted that applicant's medical conditions of PTSD, ADHD, Adjustment Disorder, or Major Depression did not outweigh the unmitigated basis for applicant's separation for stealing U.S. currency, military property, falsely signing official documents on six occasions over a four year period of time for a total of over $140,000. b. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention but determined the misconduct was a conscious decision as the applicant was charged with signing official documents, which were false, on six occasions over a four-year time frame. (2) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered this contention 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 stealing U.S. currency, military property, falsely signing official documents on six occasions, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting a general discharge at the time of separation. 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 contentions 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 PTSD, ADHD, Adjustment Disorder, Depression, or Major Depression did not outweigh the unmitigated offenses of signing official documents, which were false, on six occasions over a four-year time frame for a total of over $140,000, and the discharge characterization was both proper and equitable. 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. (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 AR20210002811 1