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's discharge is inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident in a combined service of approximately 18 years, from November 1985 to May 2004. The applicant's service began from an enlisted Soldier to an officer, with awards, decorations, accolades, successful deployments (in combat, near combat-NATO, humanitarian, successful commands and joint operations in war zones). The applicant met the call with no hesitations, even when applicant had incurred medical and PTSD issues. All of the applicant's service accomplishments led to applicant being medically processed for retirement through a physical evaluation board (PEBD). The incident which resulted in the applicant receiving an under other than honorable conditions discharge was at the end of applicant's service. The applicant was prosecuted and punished under the civilian system, culminating in applicant serving time in Petersburg, VA. The applicant was also punished with the under other than honorable conditions discharge, instead of allowing applicant to receive a medical retirement which already had been determined by a PEBD. The PEBD had determined applicant would be retired at 30 percent disability. The applicant believes applicant was punished three times, by the military as well as the civilian authorities. The military declined and deferred the case to the civilian authorities, yet applicant was punished double jeopardy and more. Additionally, the applicant also made the list for promotion to Major, and was nominated for a position as a Branch Assignment Officer with Accessions Command. Although, the applicant was medically retired, each of the selections, promotion as well as numerous awards validate applicant's performance and service to applicant's country. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable and the narrative reason changed to personality disorder. The narrative reason accurately describes applicant's PTSD, head injuries, not to mention applicant's many medical issues as a result of military service, prior to the incident leading to applicant's discharge in May 2004. In a records review conducted on 22 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: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Paragraph 4-2B / JNC / NA / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 7 April 2004 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 3 December 2002 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b for misconduct, moral, or professional dereliction, due to the following reasons: On or about 4 August 2001 and continuing until around February 2002, the applicant wrongfully appropriated and transferred without authority the names, birth dates, and social security numbers of six people to credit card issuers. The intent was to obtain access to the additional credit to pay the applicant's personal debts and expenses. The applicant obtained eight credit cards in the names of other people, used six of those credit cards and transferred a total of $46,770.22 of applicant's personal debt and expenses to those credit cards between 4 August 2001 and February 2002. The applicant's conduct violated Articles 121 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). (3) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (4) Board of Inquiry (BOI): Notification to Appear Before a Board of Inquiry, dated 31 January 2003, reflects a BOI was appointed to determine whether the applicant should be retained on active duty or discharged for in accordance with AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2a(1), (5), (8) and (9) for unsatisfactory performance and paragraphs 4-2b(5), (7), and (8) for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction. The applicant acknowledged the notification to appear before the BOI (Acknowledgment undated). On 5 March 2003, the BOI convened and recommended the applicant be involuntarily separated with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. On 6 May 2003, the Commander, U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, recommended approval of the BOI recommendations. (5) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 4 April 2003, the GOSCA recommended the applicant be involuntarily eliminated from service / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (6) DA Board of Review for Eliminations: On 6 June 2003, the Army Board of Review for Eliminations considered the GOSCA's request to involuntarily separate the applicant for substandard performance in accordance with AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b. (7) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 6 June 2003 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 9 June 1993 / NIF b. Age at Appointment: / Education: 24 / Master's Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-3 / 31A, Military Police Officer / 17 years, 6 months, 1 day d. Prior Service / Characterizations: NIF e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Cuba, Haiti, Italy, Korea, Panama / None f. Awards and Decorations: DMSM, MSM-4, JSCM, ARCOM-4, AAM-6, JMUA-2, ASUA-3, CGMUC, NATOMDL, AFEM, HSM-3, KDSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR, UNM, GWOTSM / The applicant's AMHRR reflects award of two NDSMs, however, the awards are not reflected on the DD Form 214. g. Performance Ratings: 1 June 1993 - 30 September 1997 / Promote Ahead 1 October 1997 - 14 May 2002 / Best Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The Washington Post Article, "Army Recruiter Guilty in Identity Theft, Credit Cards Obtained in Victims' Names Used to Charge Nearly $47,000 in Debt," dated 22 October 2002, reflects the applicant was the subject of the Article. U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, reflects on 10 January 2003, the applicant pled guilty and was found guilty of Identification Document Fraud. The applicant from 4 August 2001, and continuing until at least February 2002, the applicant used and transferred without authority the names, birth dates, and Social Security Account numbers of six other people to credit card issuers with intent to obtain access to additional credit to pay applicant's personal debts and expenses. During the same time period, the applicant obtained eight credit cards in the names of other people, used six of those credit cards and transferred a total of $46,770.22 of his personal debt and expenses to those credit cards. The actions by the applicant were knowing and deliberate, and were not committed by mistake, accident or other innocent reason. The applicant was sentenced to 12 months and 1 day imprisonment (recommended location FCI, Petersburg, VA) and probation for 3 years. The applicant was to surrender for service of sentence at the institution designated by the Bureau of Prisons after 1 April 2003, as notified by the U.S. State Marshal. Washington Post Article, "Soldier Sentence to 366 Days for Identity Theft, "dated 11 January 2003, reflects the applicant was the subject of the Article. Memorandum, subject: Board of Inquiry - [Applicant], dated 28 April 2003, the military law attorney indicated the applicant underwent a physical evaluation board (PEB) on 15 October 2002 and the PEB concluded the applicant was physically unfit for service due to asthma and placed applicant on the temporary disability retired list (50 percent disability). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 319 days: (CCA, 20 May 2003 - 2 April 2004) / Released from Confinement j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 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) Paragraph 1-23c, states a discharge under other than honorable conditions is an administrative separation from the service. A discharge certificate will not be issued. An officer will normally receive an under other than honorable conditions when he or she: Resigns for the good of the Service; is dropped from the rolls (DFR) of the Army in accordance with paragraph 5-9; (3) is involuntarily separated due to misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or for the final revocation of a security clearance under DODI 5200.02 and AR 380-67 as a result of an act or acts of misconduct, including misconduct for which punishment was imposed; and, is discharged following conviction by civilian authorities. (5) Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty. (6) Paragraph 4-2b, prescribes for the elimination of an officer for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interests of national security. (7) Paragraph 4-24a states an officer identified for elimination may, at any time during or prior to the final action in the elimination case elect one of the following options: (1) Submit a resignation in lieu of elimination; (2) request a discharge in lieu of elimination; and, Apply for retirement in lieu of elimination if otherwise eligible. 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 narrative reason for the discharge needs changed to personality disorder. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, AR 600-8-24 with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Unacceptable Conduct," and the separation code is "JNC." Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs 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 exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends suffering from PTSD. The applicant's AMHRR contains no documentation of PTSD diagnosis. The applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The ARBA sent a letter to the applicant at the address in the application on 5 June 2019, requesting documentation to support a PTSD diagnosis. The applicant responded and requested additional time to produce the evidence, but no evidence has been provided. The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Army Regulation 600-8-24, in pertinent part, stipulates circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends a physical evaluation board concluded applicant was medically unfit at the time of the separation proceedings. The applicant's AMHRR is void of any medical/physical evaluation board proceedings. The AMHRR reflects the military law attorney indicated the applicant underwent a physical evaluation board (PEB) on 15 October 2002, which concluded he was unfit for service due to asthma and he would be placed on the temporary disability retired list. Army Regulation 600-8-24 stipulates if an officer is being processed for separation or has been referred for elimination action, when it is determined the officer has a medical impairment which does not meet medical retention standards, the officer will be processed in accordance with provisions of this regulation and through the MEB/PEB system. If the physical disability evaluation results in a finding of physical fitness, the Army Physical Disability Agency (APDA) will approve the findings for the Secretary of the Army and forward the proceedings to the Commander, Human Resources Command (AHRC-OPD-A) (previously the Commander, PERSCOM (TAPC-PDT-PM)), to be processed with the other action. If a physical disability evaluation results in a finding of physical unfitness, both actions will be forwarded by HRC (AHRC-OPD-A), to the Secretary of the Army for determination of appropriate disposition. The applicant contends good service, to include deployments. The applicant contends applicant was punished three times for one incident. AR 600-8-24, states an officer will normally receive an under other than honorable conditions when he or she is involuntarily separated due to misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or for the final revocation of a security clearance under DODI 5200.02 and AR 380-67 as a result of an act or acts of misconduct, including misconduct for which punishment was imposed; and, is discharged following conviction by civilian authorities. 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 applicant submissions and found the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, Other Depressive Episodes, and Anxiety Disorder, which, in the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor could potentially mitigate wrongful appropriation and transfer without authority names, birth dates, and social security numbers of six people to credit card issuer, receipt of those credit cards and transferring a total of $46,770.22 of personal debt and expenses to those credit cards, the misconduct 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 after applying liberal consideration to applicant's statement that applicant had PTSD during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor, even after applying liberal consideration, found applicant's PTSD and other BH disorders do not mitigate applicant's misconduct of wrongfully appropriating and transferring without authority the names, birth dates, and social security numbers of six people to credit card issuers with the intent to obtain access to the additional credit to pay the applicant's personal debts and expenses, as well as the applicant obtaining eight credit cards in the names of other people, used six of those credit cards, transferring a total of $46,770.22 of applicant's personal debt and expenses to those credit cards, because this misconduct that was the basis for separation is not part of the sequela of symptoms associated with PTSD or applicant's other BH diagnoses. Rather it is a willful and conscious act, perpetrated over time, with the intent to avoid detection, which has no nexus with PTSD or applicant's other BH diagnoses. The weight of the evidence regarding applicant's fitness for duty also does not support any mitigation of the misconduct that was 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 concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the evidence did not support a conclusion that any of the applicant's medical conditions outweighed the basis for applicant's separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed to personality disorder. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, AR 600-8-24 with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Unacceptable Conduct," and the separation code is "JNC." The Board determined the reason for applicant's discharge was both proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends suffering from PTSD. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but concluded this medical condition did not warrant an upgrade because PTSD did not mitigate, nor outweigh the misconduct that was the basis for applicant's separation. (3) The applicant contends the event which led to the discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. The Board determined this was not an isolated incident, the record shows the misconduct was prolonged and involved multiple misconduct charges. Therefore, the Board determined the discharge was both proper and equitable. (4) The applicant contends a physical evaluation board concluded applicant was medically unfit at the time of the separation proceedings. The Board determined that the applicant's requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of the ADRB. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using a DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. (5) 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 wrongful appropriation and transfer without authority names, birth dates, and social security numbers of six people to credit card issuer, receipt of those credit cards and transferring a total of $46,770.22 of personal debt and expenses to those credit cards, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (6) The applicant contends he was punished three times for one incident. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately determined this did not warrant an upgrade as AR 600-8-24 states an officer will normally receive an under other than honorable conditions when he or she is involuntarily separated due to misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or for the final revocation of a security clearance under DODI 5200.02 and AR 380- 67 as a result of an act or acts of misconduct, including misconduct for which punishment was imposed; and, is discharged following conviction by civilian authorities. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. The applicant has exhausted their appeal options available with ADRB. However, the applicant may still apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. 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, Other Depressive Episodes, and Anxiety Disorder did not excuse or mitigate, let alone outweigh the offenses of wrongful appropriation and transfer without authority names, birth dates, and social security numbers of six people to credit card issuer, receipt of those credit cards and transferring a total of $46,770.22 of personal debt and expenses to those credit cards. 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 AR20210003225 1