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 document titled "Request for Examination" was forged in the applicant's name claiming the applicant was married, yet the applicant states completing and signing the same form where the applicant accurately states being divorced, and this forgery caused an enormous hardship to the applicant and the applicant's family. The applicant contends having served this country with honor and dignity, and since discharge has been homeless, jobless, and unable to receive adequate medical attention. The applicant accepts responsibility, and believes the forged document was a big factor in the applicant's discharge, and not being able to receive health care benefits, GI bill educational benefits, home loan benefits, or employment benefits. The applicant also provided a plethora of documents indicating a diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder, which may have affected judgment, mitigating the applicant's conduct leading to discharge. In a records review conducted on 26 April 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: Court-Martial (Other) / AR 635-200, Chapter 3 / JJD / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 7 March 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Pursuant to Special Court-Martial Empowered to Adjudge a Bad-Conduct Discharge: As announced by Special Court-Martial Order Number 7 and 8, both dated 1 May 2014, the applicant was found guilty of the following: Special Court-Martial Order Number 7: Charge, in violation of Article 85: The applicant did on 16 October 2008, with intent to avoid hazardous duty and shirk important service, namely: service as a member of a HUMINT Collection team in Iraq, quit place of duty, to wit: Forward Operating Base Hunter, located at Maysan Province, Iraq, and did remain so absent in desertion until the applicant was apprehended on 13 June 2012. Special Court-Martial Order Number 8: Charge I, in violation of Article 121: The applicant on diverse occasions, between 22 August 2007 and 16 October 2008 and between 13 June 2013 and 1 April 2013, steal currency, military property, of a value of more than $500, the property of the US Army. Charge II, in violation of Article 132: The applicant, for the purpose of obtaining of a claim against the United States in the amount of $24,431.50 for Basic Allowance for Housing and Basic Allowance for Subsistence, did, at or near Dallas, Texas, on 22 August 2007 use a certain writing, to wit: a marriage certificate, which said writing, the applicant then knew contained a statement that said the applicant was married to Mrs. M.F.P., which statement was false and fraudulent in that the applicant was divorced from Mrs. M.F.P., and was then known by the applicant to be false and fraudulent.. (2) Adjudged Sentence: Court-Martial Order Number 7: Reduction to E-3; and to perform hard labor without confinement for 3 months. Court-Martial Order Number 8: Reduction to E-1 and to be discharged from the service with a Bad Conduct Discharge. (3) Date/Sentence Approved: Court-Martial Order Number 7: 11 March 2013 / only so much of the sentence as provides for reduction of E-3. Court-Martial Order Number 8: 21 November 2013 / the sentence was approved, except for the part of the sentence extending to a Bad Conduct Discharge. (4) Appellate Reviews: The records of trial were forwarded to The Judge Advocate General of The Army for review by the Court of Military Review. The United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the approved findings of guilty and the sentence. (5) Date Sentence of BCD Ordered Executed: 26 October 2015 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 22 August 2007 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 32 / Bachelor's Degree / 125 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 35M, Human Intelligence Collector / 4 years, 10 months, 18 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (27 May 2008 - 1 September 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, CAB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Special Court Martial Orders as described in previous paragraph 3c. Department of Defense Report of Result of Trial, dated 21 November 2013, resulting from previously listed charges. Special Court-Martial Order Number 107, dated 26 October 2015, directing execution of the applicant's Bad Conduct Discharge. Personnel Action form, reflecting the applicant's duty status changed from "AWOL" to "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," effective 15 November 2008. Petition for Clemency under R.C.M. 1105, dated 10 March 2014. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 3 years, 7 months, 28 days: (AWOL, 16 October 2008 - 13 June 2012) / Apprehended by Civil Authorities j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Sanity Board evaluation Memorandum provided by the applicant, ordered on 11 December 2012, reflects a diagnosis of Bipolar I Disorder. Memorandum for COL G.A.G. provided by the applicant, dated 30 April 2012, indicates the applicant at the time the above referenced offenses were committed, was able to appreciate the wrongfulness of the applicant's actions and the applicant possessed sufficient mental capacity to understand the nature of the proceedings against the applicant and to participate intelligently in the defense. The memorandum further indicates if not the subject of a courts-martial the applicant would be referred for a Medical Evaluation Board for Bipolar Disorder. Doctor's Statement provided by the applicant, dated 7 November 2013, indicates a finding of Bipolar Disorder, anxiety, and depression. Rabjohn Behavioral Institute letter with accompanied Psychiatric Evaluation provided by the applicant, dated 12 November 2012, indicates the applicant's symptoms are consistent with Bipolar Disorder, Type I, Most Recent Episode Manic, Severe with Psychotic Features. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; Request for Examination; Special Court-Martial Order Number 8; separation orders; marriage license; Judgment of Divorce; Department of Defense Report of Results of Trial; applicant's Trial Speech; separation packet; mail correspondence updating the applicant's address; email correspondence with attachments; defense exhibits from Court-Martial; Doctor's Statement; recommendation of SJA; Petition for Clemency; excerpt from AR 40-501; self-authored statement to separation authority; and character letters addressed to separation authority and clemency board (eight). 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 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. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for separation specifically allows such characterization. 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 "JJD" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 3, Court-Martial (other). 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-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaivable 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 service record indicates the applicant was adjudged guilty by a court-martial and the sentence was approved by the convening authority. Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process. The Board is empowered to change the discharge only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. The applicant provided several medical documents indicating applicant was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder and prescribed medication, which may have affected judgment, mitigating the applicant's conduct leading to discharge. The applicant's AMHRR contains no documentation of a Mental Status Evaluation. Memorandum for COL G.A.G. provided by the applicant, dated 30 April 2012, indicates the applicant, at the time the above referenced offenses were committed, was able to appreciate the wrongfulness of the applicant's actions, and the applicant possessed sufficient mental capacity to understand the nature of the proceedings against the applicant and to participate intelligently in the defense. The memorandum further indicates if not the subject of a courts-martial the applicant would be referred for a Medical Evaluation Board for Bipolar Disorder. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. Eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. Eligibility for veteran's benefits does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The applicant contends current homelessness and the need for help. Eligibility for housing support program benefits for Veterans does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. Moreover, all veterans at risk for homelessness or attempting to exit homelessness can request immediate assistance by calling the National Call Center for Homeless Veterans hotline at 1-877-424-3838 for free and confidential assistance. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. 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 DoD and VA medical records, applicant submissions and third party statements, and found the applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder and Bipolar Disorder that could potentially mitigate a discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the applicant has diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder and Bipolar Disorder 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 the applicant has a BH diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder and Bipolar Disorder neither BH condition mitigates applicant's misconduct. Making a false statement and fraudulent documentation for the purposes of monetary gain of over $24,000 is not part of the sequela of symptoms associated with Adjustment Disorder or Bipolar Disorder. Defrauding the government is a conscious and willful act, perpetrated over time that required sustained effort/decision, that does not have any nexus with Adjustment Disorder or Bipolar Disorder in either its manic or depressive phase. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board's application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that either applicant's Adjustment Disorder or Bipolar Disorder outweighed defrauding the government as the basis for applicant's separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant provided several medical documents indicating applicant was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder and prescribed medication, which may have affected judgment, mitigating the applicant's conduct leading to discharge. The Board liberally considered this contention during proceedings, ultimately the Board determined the applicant's Bipolar Disorder and prescribed medication, and other BH conditions do not outweigh the unmitigated applicant misconduct, and further do not warrant any clemency, therefore the discharge is proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill and veterans benefits. The Board determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare or VA loans, do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. (3) The applicant contends current homelessness and the need for help. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant's General (under honorable conditions) discharge makes the applicant eligible for VA homelessness assistance but determined that even after considering these circumstances, no clemency was warranted, and the discharge was both proper and equitable. (4) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge will allow the applicant to obtain better employment. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. (5) 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 defrauding the government, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an upgrade. 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 Adjustment Disorder and Bipolar Disorder did not outweigh the offenses of defrauding the government, the evidence did not warrant any clemency, 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 AR20210003061 1