1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant, though counsel, requests an upgrade honorable, to change the reason to Secretarial Authority, and change the reentry code. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant was inspired to serve the country by the tragic events of 9/11. The applicant states the applicant was 16 years old when the applicant's father died tragically. The applicant states the applicant enlisted in the Army after high school and excelled to become an Intelligence Analyst. The applicant states the applicant was assigned to Fort Campbell receiving the Air Assault Wings within two months. The applicant states the applicant won the Battalion Soldier of the Month and Quarter; Brigade Soldier of the Year; and placed second in the 101st Airborne Soldier of the Year Board. The applicant states the applicant received various awards and earned an early promotion to Specialist. The applicant states the applicant was requested, by name, to deploy to Afghanistan and served as a Radio Telephone Operator, tracking all coalition patrols, significant events, force protection threats, and routine activities. The applicant states the applicant was awarded for meritorious service. The mission made the applicant proud, but the applicant states the applicant suffered from insomnia, anxiety, and depression due to accepting blame for coalition force members killed by enemy combatants and other experiences of war. The applicant states the applicant redeployed, but did not discuss the health issues with supervisors, believing it would negatively impact the applicant's career. The applicant states the applicant made the Commandant's List in the Basic Leaders Course (BLC), was promoted to Sergeant, and reassigned to Joint Base Elmendorf. The applicant states the applicant was motivated, but realized the new command was different. The applicant states the applicant stopped going to church and became depressed. The applicant states the applicant worked hard and pursued a college degree, but was lonely. The applicant states the applicant met a person on Tinder who, initially, the applicant did not know was married. The applicant states the applicant learned the person was married to a Soldier and was in an open marriage. The applicant states the person and the spouse were disturbed, and the applicant was manipulated due to naiveté. The applicant states the applicant committed adultery with the person, portraying an abused spouse who wanted out of the marriage. The applicant states the applicant discontinued the relationship and the person became angry and vindictive. The applicant states the spouse and the Tinder match vandalized the applicant's car on three occasions. The applicant states the applicant reported the incidents and during the investigation, the applicant admitted the friendship became sexual. The applicant states the applicant acknowledged the mistake and received non-judicial punishment. The applicant states the Army providers diagnosed the applicant with severe depression, anxiety, and PTSD, and prescribed medication which made the applicant suicidal. The applicant states the providers tried to prevent self-medication through alcohol. The applicant states the discharge was devastating. The applicant states the conditions became worse and the applicant had suicidal ideations. The applicant states the applicant sought counseling at the Veterans Administration (VA) and was rated 50 percent service-connected disability for PTSD. The applicant states the applicant is employed with Honda and the supervisors attest to the applicant's character. Counsel summarizes various character references, which attest to the applicant's military service and post-service accomplishments. Counsel argues the applicant should be provided relief based on the Kurta Memo. The applicant further details the contentions in two allied self-authored statements provided with the application. In a records review conducted on 30 June 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, post-service accomplishments, prior period of honorable service, and the facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge (separation authority support letter retracting the decision for the original discharge once the undue influence of the chain of command came to light). Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. 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: 29 June 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 23 May 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On multiple occasions between 6 and 9 March 2017, the applicant had sex with A.B., a married person not the spouse. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 24 May 2017 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 2 June 2017 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 26 January 2016 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 108 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 352P 2B Intelligence Analyst, 4 years, 12 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 18 June 2013 - 25 January 2016 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska, SWA / Afghanistan (21 June 2015 - 20 October 2015) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM-3, AAM-2, MUC, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR, MOVSM, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The U.S. Air Force Security Forces Investigation, Report of Investigation, dated 13 March 2013, reflects the applicant submitted a complaint regarding the applicant's vehicle being vandalized and license plates removed. The suspects, a married couple, were interviewed. The investigation revealed the couple were involved in vandalizing the applicant's vehicle. The investigation further revealed the applicant and another Soldier had an adulterous relationship with one of the individuals in the married couple. Memorandum for Record, subject: Assumption of Command by Authority of AR 600-20, paragraph 2-6, dated 4 May 2017, reflects the Major M.M. assumed command of 3rd Battalion, 509th Infantry Battalion (Airborne), Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER), AK, effective 4 May 2017. FG Article 15, dated 4 May 2017, for wrongfully having sexual intercourse with A.B., a married person who was not the spouse (between 6 and 8 March 2017). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4; forfeiture of $1,157 pay; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Lieutenant Colonel C.D., the battalion commander, signed the initial reading of the Article 15 and the applicant was given 48 hours to consult with counsel. The hearing was conducted by Major M.M., the Acting Commander. The applicant provided letter from Mr. C.D., dated 6 September 2021, reflects Mr. C.D. served as the applicant's battalion commander at the time of the separation proceedings. Mr. C.D. admits to being wrong to support the administrative separation and to be fair, just, and equitable, the applicant's discharge should be upgraded to an honorable. Mr. C.D. contends not being available during the Article 15 proceedings due to medical leave. Mr. C.D. was misled by the CSM regarding what transpired at the Article 15 hearing. There was an overt malice toward the applicant by members of the chain of command, which influenced initiation of the separation. There was an extremely close relationship between the Battalion's Command Sergeant Major (CSM) and the company commander. Mr. C.D. was not aware of all the circumstances surrounding the offense, at the time. If known, Mr. D.M. would not have supported an administrative separation, given the applicant's outstanding contribution to the Army and otherwise exemplary character. The CSM was later investigated for inappropriate relationships, which resulted in the CSM's retirement. Two Developmental Counseling Forms, for adultery and being recommended for a Field Grade Article 15. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 1 May 2017, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Headaches for approximately two years, no history of trauma; anxious when exposed to uncomfortable situations; and trouble staying asleep. The applicant provided Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 9 May 2017, which reflects, medical screening revealed Anxiety Syndrome possible; PTSD possible; and probable Alcohol Dependence. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 9 May 2017, reflects the applicant was cleared for separation. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong, could participate in the proceedings, and met medical retention standards. The applicant was screened for PTSD, which resulted in a positive score of 41. The applicant was screened for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury with negative results. On several testing instruments the applicant's scores indicated the presence of depression and anxiety. The primary source for these symptoms was the recent legal and occupational problems. The provider was able to rule out any behavioral diagnosis. The applicant provided the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision, dated 30 January 2018, which reflects, the applicant was rated 50 percent service-connected disability for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (claimed as PTSD, Anxiety, Depression, Insomnia). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Legal Brief with all enclosures 1 through 13; self-authored statement; Mr. C.D., (retired officer), letter, former battalion commander; VA Office of Research and Development Article, "Study yields insight on sexual disorder and its effects on Vets"; Journal of Behavioral Addictions Article, "Compulsive sexual behavior among [redacted] military veterans: Prevalence and associated clinical factors"; Addiction Hope Article, "The Connection between PTSD in the Military and Sexual Addiction"; VA eBenefits webpage; VA letter; Electronic Message communications. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends maintaining employment, volunteering in the church, and attaining an associate's and a bachelor's Degree. 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-1 Applies to: Person completing his or her term of active service who is considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. Eligibility: Qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. 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 the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed to Secretarial Authority. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is "JKQ." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the 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 as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends the reentry code needs changed. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 601-201, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of "3." There is no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or the RE code. An RE Code of "3" indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army's needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. The applicant contends PTSD, severe depression, and anxiety affected behavior which ultimately led to the discharge. The applicant provided medical documents indicating the applicant was rated 50 percent service-connected disability for PTSD (claimed as PTSD, Anxiety, Depression, Insomnia) by the VA. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 9 May 2017, which indicates the applicant was cleared for separation. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong, could participate in the proceedings, and met medical retention standards. The applicant was screened for PTSD, which resulted in a positive score of 41. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The applicant contends obtaining employment, volunteering in the church, and attaining an associate's and a bachelor's degree. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in- service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. The third-party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant's good military service and 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 the applicant's Adjustment Disorder and PTSD could mitigate the applicant's basis of separation. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the applicant's Adjustment Disorder and PTSD existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant Adjustment Disorder and PTSD do not mitigate the applicant's adultery basis of separation as there are no natural sequelae between an Adjustment Disorder or PTSD and adultery. (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 determined that the applicant's Adjustment Disorder and PTSD do not outweighed the unmitigated basis for applicant's separation - adultery. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed to Secretarial Authority. The Board considered this contention and found no evidence of mitigating circumstances warranting a narrative reason change to SA. The Board did find an inequity, in conjunction with the letter of support from the discharging authority, that, while the offense occurred, it is a minor offense and not the Serious Offense for which the applicant is currently Discharged. Thus, relief is warranted to JKN, but not SA. (2) The applicant contends the reentry code needs changed. The Board considered this contention and voted to maintain the RE-code due to the applicant's service-limiting conditions. An RE Code of "3" indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army's needs at the time and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes, if appropriate. (3) The applicant contends PTSD, severe depression, and anxiety affected behavior which ultimately led to the discharge. The Board liberally considered this contention and determined that the applicant's Adjustment Disorder and PTSD do not outweighed the unmitigated basis for applicant's separation - adultery. Therefore, no change is warranted based on this contention. (4) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board considered the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and determined to grant relief. (5) The applicant contends obtaining employment, volunteering in the church, and attaining an associate's and a bachelor's degree. The Board considered this contention and determined that the totality of the applicant's service and post-service accomplishments warranted relief. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, post-service accomplishments, prior period of honorable service, and the facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge (separation authority support letter retracting the decision for the original discharge once the undue influence of the chain of command came to light). d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable because based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, post- service accomplishments, prior period of honorable service, and the facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge (separation authority support letter retracting the decision for the original discharge once the undue influence of the chain of command came to light). Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (2) The Board voted to change the reason for discharge to Misconduct (Minor Infractions) since while the offense occurred, it is minor, thus the reason for discharge is no longer appropriate. The SPD code associated with the new reason for discharge is JKN. (3) The RE code will not change, as the applicant's holds service-limited conditions which would require further scrutiny should the applicant desire to continue military service. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a 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 AR20210002816 1