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, the applicant believes the characterization of service received does not accurately represent the true level of service the applicant displayed during the 35 months of service. The reason for the discharge was also involuntarily separated from the Army was based entirely on an isolated incident and ignored a pattern of consistently honorable performance before and during the applicant's term of service. During the 35 months, the applicant received no additional adverse actions, continually sought opportunities to improve and was recommended by each Commander within the Brigade's Chain of Command to receive an honorable discharge during the appeals process. The applicant has accepted full responsibility for the actions and it is the applicant's belief an honorable characterization of service will further allow the applicant to continue a life of honorable service outside the Army. The applicant will continue to take advantage of every opportunity afforded to the applicant to appeal the characterization of service and hopes the Board will respectfully consider the applicant's position and carefully refer to the evidence the applicant has provided. In a records review conducted on 5 May 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: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2B / JNC / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 6 March 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 14 August 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed 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 his Army Military Human Resource Record in accordance with AR 600-37, due to the following reasons: On 16 November 2016, the applicant submitted a fraudulent claim to the Fort Campbell Transportation Office in attempt to receive unauthorized money to which the applicant was not entitled for Personally Procured Move (PPM). On 15 March 2017, the applicant received a GOMOR for this personal misconduct which was subsequently filed in the applicant's OMPF. (3) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (4) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 30 November 2017, the GOSCA recommended the Officer be eliminated from the U.S. Army with a General (Under Honorable Conditions). (5) DA Board of Review for Eliminations: The applicant was a probationary officer and was recommended for an honorable or general discharge, the case was forwarded directly to Human Resources Command for submission to the Deputy Assistant Secretary (DASA) without referral to a Board of Inquiry, in accordance with AR 600-8-24, paragraph 19f. The DASA has the final decision. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 13 February 2018 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 1 October 2015 / NIF b. Age at Appointment: / Education: 28 / Bachelor's Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-1 / 11A 5R Infantry / 2 years, 10 months, 10 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 27 April 2015 - 30 September 2015 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: 1 October 2015 - 4 December 2017 / Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Memorandum for Commander, dated 4 November 2016, reflects on 1 November 2016, SA P. J., was notified by Mr. L. T, Lowe's Home Improvement, a Soldier came into the store on 31 October 2016, in a rented U-Haul and purchased two pallets of concrete. Each pallet contained 42, 80 pound bags of concrete. Mr. L. T. did not know the Soldier's name but knew the license plate number for the U-Haul. Mr. L. T. asked the Soldier if the Soldier was familiar with the store's policy on concrete and the Soldier did not. Mr. L. T., stated the Soldier said the Soldier was not concerned because the Army was going to pay $.80 per pound to move the personal property. Mr. L. T. informed the Soldier the store had a no return policy once the concrete was loaded on the truck. The Soldier requested a refund for both pallets of concrete. Mr. L. T. stated the next day the Soldier was there again to pick up concrete. The Soldier paid for one pallet of concrete and placed it in the rear of the U- Haul which contained personal property. Receipts were obtained by SA's and the transaction was paid for with a debit card belonging to W. R. R-R. Surveillance footage also showed loading of the pallets into a U-Haul vehicle which was loaded with other property. DD Form 2278, reflects the applicant submitted an Application for Do it Yourself Move, dated 10 November 2016. CID Report, dated 17 November 2016, reflects the applicant was being investigated for a possible DITY move fraud case. The applicant was observed at a Lowes Home Improvement loading bags of cement into a U-Haul truck during the DITY move. The applicant waived the legal rights and provided a verbal statement wherein the applicant admitted to committing the listed offense. Administrative General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 15 March 2017, for the applicant's reprehensible conduct of submitting a fraudulent claim to the Fort Campbell Transportation Office to receive unauthorized money to which the applicant was not entitled for the applicant's Do It Yourself (DITY) move. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of the VA Rating Decision, dated 28 January 2021, which reflects the applicant was granted 50 percent service-connected for major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate with generalized anxiety disorder (previously rated as anxiety condition). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Appeal Decision for Revocation of Security Clearance; seven Certificates of Training; three third party letters; reprimand filing recommendation form; CID report; DA Form 1059; Certificate of Achievement; AAM certificate; DA Form 638; Soldier of the Cycle Certificate; three USAREC forms 609; four letters of recommendation; Investigative Bureau Recognition Award Certificate; Individual Commendation Award Certificate; city of Fayetteville Police Department District Award; District Recognition Award Certificate; Individual Commendation Award Certificate; Merit Award Certificate; VA Rating Decision. 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. 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 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 Regulations, in pertinent part, stipulate circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends during the 35 months, the applicant received no additional adverse actions, continually sought opportunities to improve and was recommended by each Commander within the Brigade's Chain of Command to receive an honorable discharge during the appeals process. The Board considered the service accomplishments and the quality of service. The applicant contends being diagnosed with major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate with generalized anxiety disorder (previously rated as anxiety condition) and was granted 50 percent service connection by the VA. The applicant provided a copy of the VA rating decision. The AMHRR does not contain a mental status evaluation (MSE). 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 is diagnosed and service connected by the VA for Major Depressive Disorder that could 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 that the applicant is diagnosed and service connected by the VA for Major Depressive Disorder. Service connection establishes that the condition existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor, after applying liberal consideration, opined that while applicant is diagnosed and service connected by the VA with Major Depressive Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder does not impact one's ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. There was no association between applicant's Major Depressive Disorder and fraud, and therefore the applicant's BH condition does not mitigate the basis for applicant's separation. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board's application of liberal consideration, the Board considered the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that applicant's Major Depressive Disorder outweighed the unmitigated basis for applicant's separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention, however, the Board determined that even if accept was an isolated incident, this assertion alone did not warrant any change to the applicant's discharge due to the severity of the offenses that were the basis for applicant's separation. (2) The applicant contends good service. 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. By the misconduct of submitting a fraudulent Personal Procurement Move to receive unauthorized funds, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (3) The applicant contends being diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent, moderate with generalized anxiety disorder (previously rated as anxiety condition) and was granted 50 percent service connection by the VA. 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 the applicant's Major Depressive Disorder, even after applying liberal consideration, does not mitigate the wrongful conduct that was the basis for applicant's separation, and therefore the Board voted the discharge was both proper and equitable. c. The Board determined the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant's contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant's characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration, the applicant's Major Depressive Disorder did not mitigate the offense of submission of a fraudulent Personal Procurement Move to receive unauthorized funds, and the discharge 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, and 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 AR20210003034 1