1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 14 July 2020 b. Date Received: 16 July 2020 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable and a separation code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant informed the command the applicant desired to leave the Army because of inappropriate grades during the applicant’s courses. The applicant’s final presentation was diminished because the applicant believes it was a personal dislike and a group of “individuals” antagonistic behavior towards the applicant. It may have been because of the “cold war” factor, or the applicant’s nationality. The group of individuals made false allegations against the applicant to prevent the applicant from testifying against the individuals in court. In the early stages of the applicant’s case, the group of individuals broke several laws against the UCMJ. For example, previous mischief cannot be used against a person if the person has already received punishment for it. In 2009, the same individuals forgot to enter control numbers on the applicant’s leave form, and for some unknown reason, did not have a copy of the applicant’s clearance and leave form from Fort Hood, which the applicant gave to them when the applicant was relocated from Fort Hood to Fort Benning. Despite the false allegations, the applicant was forced to sign a document and receive a general officer letter of reprimand. The applicant was told it was just a formality and as soon as the applicant finished the obligation, it would go away, which was a lie. During this period, the individuals created an unhealthy and unfriendly work atmosphere, which resulted in the 2009 Fort Hood shooting where several armed individuals were killed and wounded. The applicant did not know the false allegations could impact the applicant’s life as a civilian. When the applicant encountered the antagonistic behavior because of the applicant’s religious beliefs, the applicant believed it was immoral to participate in such activities as rebuttals to the false allegations. The applicant decided to request the resignation in lieu of elimination, instead of dealing with the filth and treachery. The applicant had a naïve perception of the world. The health factor also contributed to the applicant’s decision. One of the applicant’s parents has cancer and the applicant decided to take care of the applicant’s own health as well. The applicant found out about all the false allegations from the applicant’s “so called” lawyer after the applicant left the Army. The applicant was told an “under honorable” and an honorable were the same and the applicant would be able to use the education benefits, which was a lie. The applicant does not know why “inappropriate conduct” was entered on the applicant’s DD Form 214, which was changed several times. The applicant left the Army because of the applicant’s grades and for failing to complete a course, not because of “inappropriate conduct.” The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) representative indicated the applicant needed to upgrade the discharge to honorable to receive the money the applicant had deducted from the salary towards the GI Bill. Since the discharge, the applicant underwent an investigation for a Top Secret clearance and successfully passed a polygraph test, which indicates the information on the DD Form 214 is incorrect and needs to be changed. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 12 July 2023, 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 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 6 September 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2b(5) and (8) for misconduct, moral, or professional dereliction because of the following reasons: Series of substantiated derogatory activity resulting in a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, date 17 December 2009 which was filed in the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). Conduct unbecoming an officer as indicated by the above-referenced item. (3) Legal Consultation Date: 15 July 2010 (4) Board of Inquiry (BOI): On 21 July 2010, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of the case before a board of inquiry, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions) discharge. (5) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 9 August 2010, the GOSCA recommended approval of the applicant’s resignation in lieu of elimination and recommended the applicant be involuntarily eliminated from service. / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (6) DA Board of Review for Eliminations: On 13 August 2010, the Army Board of Review for Eliminations considered the GOSCA’s request to involuntary separate the applicant for unacceptable conduct in accordance with AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b. On 13 August 2010, the separation authority approved the applicant’s resignation in lieu of elimination. (7) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 13 August 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 23 February 2006 / 3 years b. Age at Appointment: / Education: 26 / Bachelor’s Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-3 / 11A, Infantry / 5 years, 1 month, 16 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 21 July 2005 – 22 February 2006 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Afghanistan (29 May 2008 – 28 May 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-2, NDSM, ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR-2, NATOMDL, EIB g. Performance Ratings: 26 July 2006 – 25 July 2007 / Fully Qualified 26 July 2007 –6 February 2008 / Fully Qualified 7 February 2008 – 30 November 2008 / Do Not Promote 1 December 2008 – 31 August 2009 / Fully Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic Mail (email) Message, dated 7 December 2009, reflecting the applicant was missing from the unit at Fort Hood for almost a month and had not reported to the next duty assignment at Fort Benning. The email message described the applicant’s duty performance as poor or less than stellar. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 17 December 2009, reflects the applicant failed to adhere to proper leave procedures and failed to sign out of the applicant’s unit, Fort Hood on or about 4 November 2009. The applicant failed to properly in-process the Maneuver Captain’s Career Course at Fort Benning. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / The applicant’s AMHRR reflects the applicant was AWOL from the unit but the applicant’s AMHRR is void of any documentation and the AWOL is not reflected on the DD form 214. j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; Army Continuing Education System counseling; and Request and Authority for Leave. 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) Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty. (5) Paragraph 4-2b, prescribes for the elimination of an officer for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interests of national security. (6) Paragraph 4-20a (previously 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 (3) 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 and a separation code change. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. Based on the AMHRR, someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant’s DD Form 214, block 25, “AR 600-8-24, PARA 4-2B.” The discharge packet confirms the separation authority approved the discharge because of Unacceptable Conduct and approved the applicant’s Resignation in Lieu of Elimination. Officers discharged, at the time, because of Unacceptable Conduct with an approved Resignation in Lieu of Elimination (RILE), should have been processed under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Paragraphs 4- 2b and 4-24a(1). The current Army Regulation 635-5-1 only requires the authority “AR 600-8- 24.” Based on the applicant’s AMHRR, someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant’s DD Form 214, block 26, Separation Code as “JNC.” The service record confirms the applicant submitted a Resignation in Lieu of Elimination and the RILE was approved by the separation authority on 12 August 2010. Officers discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Paragraph 4-2b, for Unacceptable Conduct, with an approved RILE, will be assigned a Separation Code of “BNC,” per Army Regulation 635-5-1. The applicant contends the SPD code should be changed. The SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. The SPD Codes are controlled by OSD and then implemented in Army policy AR 635-5-1 to track types of separations. The SPD code specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, is “JNC.” The applicant contends being misinformed regarding the allegations and the general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends harassment and discrimination by members of the organization. There is no evidence in the AMHRR the applicant sought assistance or reported the harassment. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. Eligibility for veteran’s benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 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? No. The Board’s Medical Advisor reviewed DoD and VA medical records and found no mitigating BH diagnoses on the applicant. The applicant provided no documents or testimony of a condition or experience, that, when applying liberal consideration, could have excused or mitigated a discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? N/A (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? N/A (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends harassment and discrimination by members of the organization. The Board considered this contention but found insufficient evidence in the applicant’s AMHRR or applicant-provided evidence to support this contention. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is not warranted. (2) The applicant contends being misinformed regarding the allegations and the general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The Board considered this contention but determined that the available evidence is insufficient to support this contention. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is not warranted. (3) The applicant contends the SPD code should be changed. The Board considered this contention but found insufficient evidence in the applicant’s AMHRR or applicant-provided evidence to show that the SPD code was not proper and equitable. (4) The applicant contends an upgrade would allow educational benefits through the GI Bill. The Board considered this contention and 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 was not found to hold an in-service behavioral health condition that would mitigate or excuse the applicant’s misconduct of absent without leave and failure to adhere to proper leave procedures. The Board also considered the applicant's contentions regarding harassment and being misinformed about the dismissal process and found that the totality of the applicant's record does not warrant a discharge upgrade. 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. Therefore, the applicant’s General discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable discharge. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. ? 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 AR20210006399 1