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 was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 10 years of service with no other adverse action and applicant had no involvement in what occurred. Due to applicant’s unstable mental issues and hardship during a lengthy investigation, choosing the chapter was the fastest way to reunite with applicant’s family. In a records review conducted on 11 January 2022, and by a 3-2 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 18 March 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): On 3 January 2019, the applicant was charged with: Charge I: Violating Article 121, UCMJ, for stealing a 67 Apple IPhone 6S, military property, of a value over $500, the property of the U.S. Army on 5 June 2018. Charge II: Violating Article 81, UCMJ, for conspiring with Sergeant (SGT) T.M and Specialist (SPC) E.S. to commit an offense under the UCMJ, to wit: larceny of military property and in order to effect the object of conspiracy, the applicant did communicate a plan to SGT M. and SPC S. to sell the property of the U.S. Army without authorization. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 14 February 2019 (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. (4) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (5) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 27 February 2019 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 October 2017 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 28 / HS Graduate / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 25U10, Signal Support System Specialist / 10 years, 9 months, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 28 May 2008 – 26 November 2010 / HD RA, 27 November 2010 – 19 November 2015 / HD RA, 20 November 2015 – 19 October 2017 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii, SWA / Iraq (26 June 2010 – 21 June 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-2, MUC, AGCM-3, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-3, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 8 May 2017 – 7 May 2018 / Highly Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge Sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; five NCOERs; Letter of Commendation Warrant Officer Procurement Program; four third party statements. 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 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) 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. (5) Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt. (6) Paragraph 10-8a stipulates a discharge under other than honorable conditions normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record during the current enlistment. (See chap 3, sec II.) (7) Paragraph 10b stipulates Soldiers who have completed entry-level status, characterization of service as honorable is not authorized unless the Soldier’s record is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization clearly would be improper. 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 “KFS” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. 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 applicant contends the discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. The applicant, in consultation with legal counsel, voluntarily requested, in writing, a discharge under the provisions of AR 635- 200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense, and indicated an understanding an under other than honorable conditions discharge could be received, and the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veterans' benefits. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. The applicant contends the discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 10 years and applicant had no involvement in what occurred. Army Regulation 635- 200, 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 due to applicant’s unstable mental issues and hardship during a lengthy investigation, applicant chose separation. 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 AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant’s good performance in the Army. 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 Adjustment Disorder, Alcohol Dependence, PTSD, and Major Depression which, in the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor could potentially mitigate stealing, larceny of military property, with a plan to sell military property 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 AHLTA contains in-service BH diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder, and Alcohol Dependence. JLV contains additional BH diagnoses that were post-service for PTSD and Major Depression. (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, opined that although the applicant has a BH diagnosis of PTSD Disorder, Adjustment Disorder and Major Depression, none of these conditions actually mitigate stealing, larceny of military property, with a plan to sell the property because these wrongful actions do not fall within the sequela of PTSD or the other applicant medical conditions. Rather applicant’s wrongful behaviors are seen as willful, conscious decisions and behavior that are not actually mitigated by PTSD or any other applicant medical condition. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the ADRB’s application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the applicant’s stealing, larceny of military property, with a plan to sell military property outweighed the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, Alcohol Dependence, PTSD, and Major Depression for the reasons listed in (3) above. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident. The Board considered this contention during its deliberations and found the evidence supported a conclusion that the applicant was appropriately charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. Further, that applicant, in consultation with legal counsel, voluntarily requested, in writing, a discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200,Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In applicant’s request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense, and indicated an understanding an under other than honorable conditions discharge could be received, and the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veterans' benefits. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. (2) The applicant contends due to applicant’s unstable mental issues and hardship during a lengthy investigation, applicant chose separation. The Board liberally considered applicant’s medical conditions, but concluded that applicant’s separation action, including the investigative phase, is a procedural step which is part of a normal process, when an alternative forum is chosen in lieu of trial by court-martial.. There is no law or regulation which requires that an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the Board determination that there was a condition or experience that existed during the applicant’s time in service. The Board must also articulate the nexus between that condition or experience and the basis for separation. Then, the Board must determine that the condition or experience outweighed the basis for separation. The Board determined that the evidence did not support a conclusion that applicant had any mitigating circumstances to the basis for separation. (3) The applicant contends good service. The Board determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By stealing, larceny of military property, with a plan to sell military property, 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 majority of the Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration, the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, Alcohol Dependence, PTSD, and Major Depression did not outweigh the offenses of stealing, larceny of military property, with a plan to sell military property. 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 AR20210003277 1