1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, applicant has medical issues which requires medical treatment. The applicant served applicant's country for many years before all of this happened and if applicant would not have been deployed at the time, applicant would have been good. The applicant was a good Soldier and had several awards and NCOERs to support applicant's good service. The applicant just wants the medical attention that is needed. The applicant was sent back from deployment to have an emergency hysterectomy. The applicant would like applicant's medical records reviewed. In a records review conducted on 16 February 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 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 28 October 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Pursuant to Special Court-Martial Empowered to Adjudge a Bad-Conduct Discharge: As announced by Special Court-Martial Order Number 37, dated 20 October 2006, on 5 June 2006, the applicant was found guilty of the following: Charge I, in violation of Article 132, UCMJ: Specification 1: Between 1 October and 6 December 2005, by preparing a DD Form 1844 and DD Form 1842 for presentation for approval or payment, made a claim against the United States in the amount of over $500 for private property alleged to have been destroyed or damaged in the military service, which claim was false and fraudulent in the amount of under $500, in that the applicant created false estimates of repair or replacement for items that the accused claimed and submitted a DD Form 1844 and DD Form 1842 with estimates of damage or repair or replacement knowing they were false and was then known by the applicant to be false and fraudulent. Plea: Guilty. Specification 2: Between 1 October and 6 December 2005, for the purpose of obtaining the approval and payment of a claim against the United States in the amount of over $500, made and used a certain writing, to wit: estimates of repair from Robinson's TV and Video and Clark's Furniture and Repair, which said writings, as the applicant, then knew, contained a statement that the estimates were made by Robinson's TV and Video, and Clark's Furniture and Repair, which statement was false and fraudulent in that the accused knew that no one from either Clark Furniture and Repair or Robinson's TV and Video had completed an estimate of damages to applicant's personal household goods, and was then known by the applicant to be false and fraudulent. Plea: Guilty. Charge II, in violation of Article 80, UCMJ: The Specification: Between 1 October and 6 December 2005, attempted to steal under $500 in currency, the property of the United States Government by presenting a false claim, using fake repair estimates, to the claims office at the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate at Fort Benning, Georgia. Plea: Guilty. Charge III, in violation of Article 107, UCMJ. The Specification: On 11 January 2006, with intent to deceive, made to SA J.Z., an official statement, to wit: that Clark's Furniture Repair and Robinson T.V. came to applicant's house, that a female from Clark's Furniture came to applicant's house, that a white male from Robinson Repair came to applicant's house, that applicant did not have anyone make up the repair receipts, and that the claim filed with SJA was accurate and true, or words to that effect, which statements were totally false and were then known by the accused to be so false. Plea: Guilty. (2) Adjudged Sentence: Reduction to E-1 and to be discharged from the service with a Bad Conduct discharge. (3) Date/Sentence Approved: 20 October 2006 / the sentence was approved and, except for that part of the sentence extending to a bad conduct discharge, would be executed. (4) Appellate Reviews: The record of trial was forwarded to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for review by the Court of Military Review. Special Court-Martial Number 152, dated 27 September 2007, reflects Article 71(c) having been complied with, the sentence was finally affirmed. (5) Date Sentence of BCD Ordered Executed: 27 September 2007 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 6 November 2001 / 5 years / The applicant was on excess leave for 3068 days (8 years, 4 months, 24 days): 5 June 2006 to 28 October 2014. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 33 / Bachelor's Degree / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 88M10, Motor Transport Operator / 26 years, 11 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 3 November 1987 - 18 November 1992 / HD ADT, 13 April 1988 - 18 August 1988 / UNC (Concurrent Service) RA, 19 November 1992 - 8 November 1995 / HD RA, 9 November 1995 - 29 October 1997 / HD RA, 30 October 1997 - 13 May 1998 / HD RA, 14 May 1998 - 5 November 2001 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, Korea / None / The applicant's NCOER for period April 2001 through December 2001, reflects while in a medium truck company forward deployed in Europe, the applicant conducted line haul operations throughout Germany, Austria, Hungary, the Balkan States, and the Benelux. f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-3, AAM-4, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-2 g. Performance Ratings: April 2001 - December 2001 / Fully Capable January 2002 - December 2002 / Among the Best January 2003 - September 2003 / Among the Best October 2003 to June 2004 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NCOER for period October 2003 through June 2004, reflects the applicant falsified promotion documents. Memorandum for Record, dated 5 October 2006, reflects the applicant was disapproved for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal. Special Court-Martial Order Number 37, dated 20 October 2006, as described in preceding paragraph 3c. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 / The applicant indicated applicant attached medical records in support of applicant's application, but there were no medical records submitted. 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), 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. (4) Paragraph 3-7c states Under other-than-honorable-conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. 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 a 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 contends having medical issues and if applicant would not have deployed at the time, applicant would be good. The applicant's AMHRR contains no documentation of a mental health diagnosis. The applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. The applicant indicated her medical records were attached as supporting documentation with her application, but there were no medical records submitted. The applicant's AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends good service to include deployments. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow medical 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. 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 and found the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and Bipolar Disorder, which, in the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor could potentially mitigate fraud, which led to separation from the Army. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found applicant's PTSD existed during applicant's military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor, after reviewing the available information and in accordance with the 3 Sep 2014 Hagel Liberal Consideration Memorandum and the 25 Aug 2017 Clarifying Guidance, that applicant's PTSD does not actually mitigate applicant's fraud that was the basis for applicant's separation because fraud is not part of the natural sequela of PTSD symptoms and in this case applicant's attempt to defraud the government were found to be willful and conscious acts that have no nexus with applicant's PTSD. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the ADRB's application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the Board's Medical Advisor and determined that the applicant's fraud outweighed the applicant's PTSD for the reasons listed in (3) above. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends having medical issues and if applicant would not have deployed at the time applicant would be good. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, however the Board determined that the applicant's fraud outweighed the applicant's PTSD and the discharge was proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends good service to include deployments. The Board recognizes and appreciates the applicant's willingness to serve and considered this contention during board proceedings. Ultimately, 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 defrauding the government, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (3) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow medical benefits. The Board considered this contention but 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. 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 PTSD did not mitigate the applicant's fraud that was the basis of separation. 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 AR20210003143 1