1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 15 January 2021 b. Date Received: 16 February 2021 c. Counsel: Yes 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is under other than honorable conditions. The applicant through legal counsel requests an upgrade to honorable, a narrative reason change to “Secretarial Authority”, and a change to the reentry eligibility (RE) code to “1”. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that the discharge was unfair at the time and remains so; applicant should have been given an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The applicant contends that applicant experienced PTSD symptoms while in the Army. The applicant believes the command made a hasty decision to initiate a request for separation. The applicant was under investigation for a pattern of misconduct, but the command did not wait to find out the result of the investigation. Although the command was authorized to administratively separate applicant, the fundamental reason for the discharge was substantially deficient. There was no fully determined reason to initiate elimination. The applicant believes the current characterization of service does not serve a further purpose. The events that took place are no longer relevant to applicant’s life and applicant has lived since in a as responsible a manner as possible. There is no valid equitable purpose in leaving this discharge in place. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 19 April 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 13 March 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): NIF; however, Memorandum for Commander, U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, dated 3 March 2015, “Post-Trial Request for Discharge in lieu of Trial by Court-Martial (SGT C.A.M.); from the Acting Staff Judge Advocate indicated: The applicant stole the identities of three Soldiers. Online, applicant forged loan documents and obtained fraudulent loans in the names of PFC V and SPC G. Applicant attempted to obtain another fraudulent loan using the identity of SPC S, but the loan was denied. When questioned about the offenses, applicant rendered a sworn written statement denying them. Applicant was charged with 3 specifications of larceny, 1 specification of attempted larceny, and 4 specifications of wrongfully providing personal identification of another person to receive a financial benefit. Trial was held on 19 February 2015. The punishment consisted of forfeit of $500 pay per month for three months; to be reduced to the grade of Specialist (E-4); to be restricted to the limits of Fort Leonard Wood for 60 days; and to perform hard labor without confinement for 90 days. (2) Legal Consultation Date: On 20 February 2014 (15), the applicant voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under AR 635-200, Chapter 10, for charges preferred against applicant under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The request was conditioned upon the Convening Authority disapproving the findings and sentence adjudged on 19 February 2015. If the Convening authority did not disapprove the findings and sentence, the request was to be automatically withdrawn. The applicant understood that he could request discharge in lieu of trial by general court-martial because at least one of the offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) at were alleged on 9 June 2014 charge sheet authorized the imposition of a dishonorable discharge. (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: 3 March 2015 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 22 October 2011 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 25U20, Signal Support System Specialist / 6 years, 1 month, 17 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 27 January 2009 to 21 October 2011 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (31 March 2011 to 1 April 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, AAM, AGCM, NDSM, ACM-CS-2, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR-2, NATOMDL, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 1 October 2011 to 14 August 2012 / Among the Best 15 August 2012 to 14 August 2013 / Marginal 15 August 2013 to 14 August 2014 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Memorandum for Commander, U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, dated 3 March 2015, “Post-Trial Request for Discharge in lieu of Trial by Court-Martial (SGT C.A.M.); from the Acting Staff Judge Advocate indicated: The applicant stole the identities of three Soldiers. Online, applicant forged loan documents and obtained fraudulent loans in the names of PFC V and SPC G. Applicant attempted to obtain another fraudulent loan using the identity of SPC S, bu the loan was denied. When questioned about the offenses, applicant rendered a sworn written statement denying them. Applicant was charged with 3 specifications of larceny, 1 specification of attempted larceny, and 4 specifications of wrongfully providing personal identification of another person to receive a financial benefit. Trial was held on 19 February 2015. The punishment consisted of forfeit of $500 pay per month for three months; to be reduced to the grade of Specialist (E-4); to be restricted to the limits of Fort Leonard Wood for 60 days; and to perform hard labor without confinement for 90 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): See Below (1) Applicant provided: Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 8 December 2020, refers to the applicant having unspecified issues with post-traumatic stress disorder. (2) AMHRR Listed: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; legal brief; self-authored letter; letters of support; and pertinent military and medical files to include NCO Evaluation Report’s award orders, certificates, and DD Form 214 for the period of service under review. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities’ last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), dated 25 September 2019, sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember’s date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (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 are 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 waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-1 Applies to: Person completing his or her term of active service who is considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. Eligibility: Qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. 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. RE-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable 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 through legal counsel requests an upgrade to honorable, a narrative reason change to “Secretarial Authority”, and a change to his reentry eligibility (RE) code to “1”. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of several offenses 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 was separated under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200 with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this chapter is “In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial,” and the separation code is “KFS.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the 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 as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant seeks relief contending that the discharge was unfair at the time and remains so; applicant should have been given an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The applicant contends that applicant experienced PTSD symptoms while in the Army. The applicant believes the command made a hasty decision to initiate a request for separation. The applicant was under investigation for a pattern of misconduct, but the command did not wait to find out the result of the investigation. Although the command was authorized to administratively separate applicant the fundamental reason for the discharge was substantially deficient. There was no fully determined reason to initiate the elimination. The applicant believes the current characterization of service does not serve a further purpose. The events that took place are no longer relevant to applicant’s life and applicant has lived since lived in as responsible a manner as he. There is no valid equitable purpose in leaving this discharge in place. The applicant’s contentions were noted; however, the applicant’s service record indicates the applicant committed discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of a noncommissioned officer in the Army. It should be noted the applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. It should also be noted the applicant’s the service record contains no evidence of Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence 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: The applicant holds post- service diagnoses of Unspecified Depressive Disorder and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant asserts PTSD in-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 PTSD does not mitigate the applicant’s misconduct as it's not a progression or sequela of trauma, stealing multiple identities and forging information to obtain loans in others’ names involves planning and executing multiple steps, over time with attempts at evasion. The level of executive functioning and awareness required to do so does not reflect cognitive impairment. (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 medically unmitigated offenses of identity theft and forgery for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant seeks relief contending that his discharge was unfair due to hasty action by the Command regarding the administrative investigation and subsequent separation proceeding. The Board considered this contention and noted that the applicant elected for separation via an administrative process under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial and the convening authority approved that request. Applicant was the impetus to the separation action, therefore, no upgrade is warranted. (2) The applicant contends that the Command did not have the proper authority to administratively separate the applicant. The Board considered this contention and determined that the Command acted within the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200 in processing this action. The applicant voluntarily elected for separation in lieu of trial by court-martial and the convening authority approved that request. (3) The applicant contends that the “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions” characterization does not serve a further purpose. The Board considered this contention a determined that, due to the seriousness of the misconduct including conscious, deliberate decisions the applicant made to steal the identities of junior Soldiers, the characterization is proper and equitable IAW AR 635-200. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s PTSD and Unspecified Depressive Disorder did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of larceny and wrongfully providing the personal identification of another for financial benefit. The Board also considered the applicant's contention procedural defects with the separation process and the characterization being too harsh 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 Under Other Than Honorable discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that of satisfactory service warranted for a General discharge or 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 AR20210009044 1