1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 14 September 2020 b. Date Received: 28 September 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 change to his reason for separation. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that it has been about 12 years since the applicant was discharged from the Army and regrets it every moment. The applicant understands the mistake that was made and had no one to offer support. All the evidence that the applicant had was ripped up or not considered by the chain of command; so the applicant must live with the outcome that once wore a rank that was given and then taken away. It’s the applicant’s fault and will live with this till death, and the applicant can no longer served in the Army. The applicant has accomplished a lot in the past 12 years, and this is the only thing that will make the applicant the happiest person, earning a BA in Psychology, Master’s in Business Administration, and working on a doctorate in business admin. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 5 April 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 3 January 2008 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 15 November 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for wrongful wearing the rank of Sergeant on the applicant uniform between 20 August 2007 and 12 October 2007 and making five false official statements (26 September 2007, 10 October 2007, 12 October 2007, 24 October 2007, and 25 October 2007). (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Discharge (4) Legal Consultation Date: 26 November 2007 (5) Administrative Separation Board: 27 November 2007, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of the case by an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: On 20 December 2007, the separation authority approved the unconditional waiver, waived further rehabilitation efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Note: The applicant was discharged from the Army on 3 January 2008, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct, with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKA and an RE code of 3. On 28 November 2008, the Army Discharge Review Board reviewed the applicant’s case and determined that relief was warrant. Accordingly, the board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general (under honorable conditions). 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 6 February 2007 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 113 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 42A10, Human Resources Specialist / 13P20, MLRS Fire Direction Specialist / 3 years, 8 months, 12 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 22 April 2004 to 5 February 2007 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (27 January 2005 to 27 January 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-4, AGCM, NDSM, ICM-2/2BSS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, CAB g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Memorandum for Commander, dated 20 December 2007, indicates the applicant received a FG Article, dated 25 October 2007, for one violation of Article 134 (wrongfully wearing the rank of SGT/E-5 upon the applicant’s uniform), and for violations of Article 107 (making false official statements). The punishment consisted of a reduction to PVT/E-1, forfeiture of $650.00 pay per month for two months, and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. A copy of the applicant’s decision letter from the Army Discharge Review Board, dated 1 December 2008. A copy of the applicant’s decision letter from the Board for Correction of Military Record, dated 14 April 2011. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF; however, documents submitted by the applicant with his application indicates the applicant has been awarded 70 percent service- connected disability for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (also claimed as insomnia). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; UMass Lowell Unofficial Transcript; disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs; Bachelor of Arts Certificate from the University of Massachusetts; Master of Business Administration from the University of Massachusetts; and transcript from Grand Canyon University. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends that since separation has earning a BA in Psychology, Master’s in Business Administration, and working on a Doctorate in Business Administration. 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. (4) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (5) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. (6) Paragraph 14-12b, addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of 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 “JKA” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12b, pattern of misconduct. 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 waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1 defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable and a change to the reason for separation. The applicant’s Army Human Resource Record (AMHRR) , the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. Evidence in the AMHRR indicates separation action was initiated against the applicant for wrongful wearing the rank of Sergeant on his uniform and making five false official statements. The applicant seeks relief contending that it has been about 12 years since the discharged from the Army and regrets it every moment. The applicant understands the mistakes that were made and had no one to support him. All the evidence that the applicant had was ripped or not considered by the chain of command; so, the applicant must live with the outcome that he wore a rank that was given to him and then taken away. It’s the applicant fault and he must live with this till he dies, and the applicant can no longer serve in the Army. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The applicant has accomplished a lot in the past 12 years, and this is the only thing that will make the applicant the happiest person, earning a BA in Psychology, Master’s in Business Administration, and working on a doctorate in business admin. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of the applicant service will be considered by the board according to the DODI 13332.28. The post-service documents submitted by the applicant with the application indicating the applicant has been diagnosed with 70 percent service-connected disability was also noted. However, the service record does not contain evidence of a Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis at the time of the applicant discharge to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. 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 the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that VA service connection (70%) establishes that PTSD occurred during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board’s Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant’s PTSD does not mitigate the discharge as PTSD does not affect one’s ability to distinguish right from wrong, so applicant’s false statements and wrongful wear of a sergeant’s ranks are not mitigated. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the applicant’s PTSD did not outweigh the applicant’s offenses of false official statements and wrongful wear of a sergeant rank. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant seeks relief contending that it has been about 12 years since discharge from the Army and regrets it every moment. Applicant contends post-service accomplishment including earning a BA in Psychology, Master’s in Business Administration, and is working on a Doctorate in Business Administration. The ADRB is authorized to consider post- service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. In this case, the Board considered this contention and determined that the time passed and post-service accomplishments do not warrant an upgrade to the discharge. (2) Applicant contends that all the evidence was ripped or not considered by the chain of command so must live with the outcome that the applicant wore rank that was given and then taken away. The Board voted after considering the contention and, finding insufficient evidence in the applicant’s file or applicant-provided file of the Command acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner, determined that a discharge upgrade was not warranted. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record which indicates multiple false statements to the applicant’s chain of command. 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 did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of wrongfully wearing a sergeant rank and making five false official statements. The Board also considered the applicant's contention regarding post- service accomplishments and that evidence was destroyed or not considered by the Command and found that 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 5 false official statements 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. (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 AR20210006737 1