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, applicant served on active duty for over 14 years and was discharged because of an injustice suffered at the hands of the last command. The punishment process and discharge imposed has affected applicant’s life in many different ways. It caused the end of applicant’s marriage, and caused applicant to miss significant time with applicant’s children. The applicant has three different deployments to Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan. The applicant received a Field Grade Article 15 for disrespect to a Senior Non- commissioned Officer and two counts of Failure to obey rules and regulations. The finding of guilt at the Article 15 reading was not established beyond a reasonable doubt, and proper procedures were not followed in the execution of the Article 15. The applicant states applicant’s PTSD was not taken into account during applicant’s Article 15 process. The applicant states having been an outstanding citizen before, and after the military. In a records review conducted on 22 March 2022, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board’s decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 21 August 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 14 May 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant received a Field Grade Article 15 given by the Brigade Commander for being disrespectful to a superior noncommissioned officer, in violation of Article 91, UCMJ, and two violations of engaging in a prohibited relationship, in violation of AR 600-20, Article 92, UCMJ. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 16 August 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 16 May 2013, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general under honorable conditions discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: On 9 August 2013, the separation authority approved the applicant’s conditional wavier to accept a discharge with a characterization no less favorable than General (Under Honorable Conditions). 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 25 February 2009 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 29 / 2 years’ college / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 31B24, H3 Military Police / 14 years, 5 months, 28 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 24 February 1999 – 9 March 2003 / HD RA, 10 March 2003 – 21 July 2005 / HD RA, 22 July 2005 – 24 February 2009 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, Korea, Kosovo, SWA / Afghanistan (27 March 2008 – 27 June 2009); Iraq (10 May 2004 – 28 February 2008); Kosovo (8 October 2002 – 21 May 2003) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ICM-2CS, ARCOM-2, AAM-3, AGCM-4, NDSM, GWOTSM, KCM, KDSM, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-5, NATOMDL-2, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 1 August 2008 – 31 January 2011 / Among the Best. 1 February 2011 – 31 August 2012 / Fully capable 1 September 2012 – 1 August 2013 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Commander’s Inquiry, dated 11 October 2012, concluded the allegation of Article 91, disrespectful to a superior noncommission officer was substantiated. Charge Sheet, dated 15 February 2013, reflects the applicant was charged with: Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 91, for on or about 28 September 2012, was disrespectful in language towards MSG J., a superior noncommission officer by saying to MSG J., “do you want to take this outside” or words to that effect. Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 92: Specification 1: On or about 2 June 2012, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 4-14b (1), Army Regulation 600-20 (Rapid Action Revision, dated 4 August 2011), Command Policy, dated 18 March 2008, by wrongfully engaging in a prohibited relationship with Specialist D., which appeared to compromise the integrity of the supervisory authority of the chain of command. Specification 2: On or about 8 July 2012, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 4- 14b (1), Army Regulation 600-20 (Rapid Action Revision, dated 4 August 2011), Command Policy, dated 18 March 2008, by wrongfully engaging in a prohibited relationship with Specialist K., that appeared to compromise the integrity of the supervisory authority of the chain of command. FG Article 15, dated 11 August 2011, for on or about 28 April 2011, having received a lawful command from MAJ S., applicant’s superior commission officer, then known to be applicant’s superior commission officer, to follow SSQ policy, or words to that effect did willfully disobey the same. On or about 28 April 2011, with intent to deceive, make to SGT M., an official statement, to wit: “I am M.J.” or words to that effect, which statement was totally false, and was then known by the applicant to be so false. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-5. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, illegible date, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. FG Article 15, dated 28 March 2013, for on or about 28 September 2012, disrespectful language toward MSG J., a superior noncommissioned officer by saying to MSG J. “do you want to go outside or words” to that effect, and for violating a lawful general regulation by wrongfully engaging in a prohibited relationship with SPC D., and SPC K., on or about 8 July 2012, appeared to compromise the integrity of the supervisory authority of the chain of command by wrongfully engaging in a prohibited relationship. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4 (suspended); forfeiture of $1,201 pay per month for two months; and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of applicant’s VA compensation letter, dated 8 November 2018, which reflects applicant was rated overall at 90 percent and 50 percent for PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; Two VA benefits letters; self- authored statement; case separation documents; and a Master of Arts Management Certificate. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant achieved a Master of Arts, in Management. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities’ last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember’s date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (5) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. (6) Paragraph 14-12c prescribes a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes, provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of “JKQ” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waivable and nonwaivable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waivable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends applicant’s PTSD was not taken into account during applicant’s Article 15 process. The applicant’s AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis. The applicant did submit evidence to support the contention the discharge resulted from a medical condition with a VA benefits letter reflecting applicant was rated 50 percent for PTSD. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on (illegible date), which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends the finding of guilt at the Article 15 reading was not established beyond a reasonable doubt, and proper procedures were not followed in the execution of the Article 15. Commander’s Inquiry, dated 11 October 2012, concluded the allegation of Article 91, disrespectful to a superior noncommission offer was substantiated. The applicant’s issue regarding Article 15 procedures does not fall within this board’s purview. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. The applicant contends applicant’s discharge was not conducted in a timely matter which caused stress on applicant’s marriage. The AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service, including three combat tours. 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 DoD and VA medical records, applicant submissions and third party statements, and found the applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Depression with Anxiety, Impulse Control Disorder, and PTSD, which, in the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, after applying liberal consideration, 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 in-service BH diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Depression with Anxiety, Impulse Control Disorder, and PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board’s Medical Advisor, after applying liberal consideration, opined that although the applicant has a diagnosis of PTSD, this condition is only partially mitigating for applicant’s misconduct of disrespecting a superior NCO because that misconduct is part of the sequela of symptoms associated with PTSD. However, applicant’s two violations of engaging in a prohibited relationship are not part of the sequela of symptoms associated with applicant’s PTSD or other BH conditions, and therefore remain as unmitigated 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 concurred with the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that PTSD, or any of the applicant’s other medical conditions outweighed the two violations of engaging in a prohibited relationship as the unmitigated basis for applicant’s separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends applicant’s PTSD was not taken into account during applicant’s Article 15 process. The Board liberally considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately determined the applicant’s PTSD and other BH conditions did not outweigh the two violations of engaging in a prohibited relationship as the unmitigated basis for separation. (2) The applicant contends the finding of guilt at the Article 15 reading was not established beyond a reasonable doubt, and proper procedures were not followed in the execution of the Article 15. The Board determined the applicant’s issue regarding Article 15 procedures does not fall within this board’s purview. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. (3) The applicant contends applicant’s discharge was not conducted in a timely matter which caused stress on applicant’s marriage. The Board considered this contention but found the weight of the evidence did not support a conclusion that the Command acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. In this case, the Board determined that this contention alone does not warrant an upgrade, the discharge is both proper and equitable. (4) The applicant contends good service, including three combat tours. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant’s willingness to serve and considered this contention during board proceedings, however 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 engaging in multiple prohibited relationships, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable 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 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, Anxiety Disorder, Depression with Anxiety, Impulse Control Disorder, and PTSD did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of engaging in multiple prohibited relationships, 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 AR20210003105 1