1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 5 March 2021 b. Date Received: 8 March 2021 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 under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable or general (under honorable conditions) and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, there were inconsistencies that took place during the separation process and separation board and the applicant was targeted by members of the command. Although the applicant provided evidence showing the applicant was found not guilty of domestic violence, but the separation board still found the applicant guilty of the offense. One of the officers on the separation board was the commander of the person who accused the applicant of domestic violence. The applicant was misguided and misinformed of the rights when dealing with the investigation. The applicant was dealing with some mental issues during the military service. The applicant states there was honorable service. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 19 May 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 27 February 2020 c. Separation Facts: The applicant’s Army Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is void of the case separation file. However, the applicant provided several documents which are described below in 3c1-3. (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 10 December 2019 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 6 September 2019, the applicant struck another Soldier while at an off-post residence; on 25 September 2018, the applicant received a Summarized Article 15, for disrespecting a noncommissioned officer; and on 10 October 2019, the applicant received an FG Article 15 for impersonating an officer and falsifying an official record to add ARCOMs and AAMs to an enlisted record brief. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 16 October 2017 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 104 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 42A10, Human Resource Specialist / 5 years, 5 months, 19 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: 9 September 2014 - 15 October 2017 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: 1 August 2018 – 1 March 2019 / Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 18 October 2019, reflects the applicant wrongfully and willfully impersonate and exercise the authority of a commissioned officer by signing the commissioned officer’s name on an ARCOM on four separate occasions, and on four separate occasions the applicant, with intent to deceive, sign an official record. The punishment consisted of reduction to specialist/E-4; forfeiture of $1,277 pay per month for 2 months, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated on or before 15 April 2020; extra duty for 45 days; and an oral reprimand. A Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer reflects an investigating officer referred to an AR 15-6 Investigation (which is not available) and recommended the commander consider taking appropriate UCMJ and/or administrative action which the commander felt was warranted. (Provided by applicant) A Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 14 November 2019, reflects the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The applicant was diagnosed with other specified problems related to primary support group. The applicant had no duty limitations due to behavioral health reasons. (Provided by applicant) i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293-2, separation file, personal statement, court- documents, documents from the AMHRR, birth certificate, background checks, Certificate of Eligibility 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has been employed and is active in the community. 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 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. (6) 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. (7) 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. 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 or general (under honorable conditions) and a narrative reason change. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant’s service AMHRR is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. The applicant’s record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant’s signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, by reason of Pattern of Misconduct, with a characterization of service of Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. The applicant provides a partial copy of the separation file. The applicant requests the narrative reason for the discharge be changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200 with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Pattern of Misconduct,” and the separation code is “JKA.” 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 listed in tables 2-2 or 2-2 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 contends there were inconsistencies that took place during the separation process and the applicant was targeted by members of the command. The applicant was misguided and misinformed of the rights when dealing with the investigation. Although the applicant provided evidence showing the applicant was found not guilty of domestic violence, however, the separation board still found the applicant guilty of the offense. The results of the separation board are not available for review. The applicant contends the applicant was dealing with some mental issues during the military service. The applicant’s AMHRR contains no documentation of mental health diagnosis. The applicant did not submit any evidence, other than the applicant’s statement, to support the contention the discharge resulted from any medical condition. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a MSE on 14 November 2019, which reflects the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The applicant was diagnosed with other specified problems related to primary support group. The applicant had no duty limitations due to behavioral health reasons. The applicant states there was honorable service. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant has been employed and is active in the community. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. 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. 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: Reaction to Severe Stress; Adjustment DO; Anxiety DO; Generalized Anxiety DO(GAD); Intermittent Explosive DO. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that all of the BH conditions listed in 1. above existed during military service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that the applicant has a BH condition, Other Trauma/Stressor-Related Disorder (also known as Reaction to Severe Stress) which mitigates some of his misconduct. As there is an association between this condition and difficulty with authority figures, there is a nexus between this condition and his disrespect of an NCO. Neither this condition nor any of his remaining BH conditions (Adjustment DO, Anxiety DO, GAD, Intermittent Explosive Disorder) mitigate the offenses of striking another person, impersonating an officer and lying on an official document as none of these conditions affects one’s ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. (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 available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Reaction to Severe Stress, Adjustment DO, Anxiety DO, GAD, Intermittent Explosive Disorder outweighed the applicant’s medically unmitigated offenses of striking another person, impersonating an officer and lying on an official document. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the applicant was dealing with some mental issues during the military service. The Board liberally considered this contention but determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Reaction to Severe Stress, Adjustment DO, Anxiety DO, GAD, Intermittent Explosive Disorder outweighed the applicant’s medically unmitigated offenses of striking another person, impersonating an officer and lying on an official document. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is not warranted. (2) The applicant contends there were inconsistencies that took place during the separation process and separation board and the applicant was targeted by members of the command. The Board considered this contention but found insufficient evidence in the applicant’s AMHRR and applicant-provided evidence to support applicant’s assertion. Therefore, no discharge upgrade is warranted. (3) The applicant contends the applicant was misguided and misinformed of the rights when dealing with the investigation. The Board considered this contention, but determined that, other than applicant’s assertion, there is insufficient evidence in the applicant’s AMHRR or applicant-provided evidence to support the contention. Therefore, no discharge upgrade is warranted. 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 available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s Reaction to Severe Stress, Adjustment DO, Anxiety DO, GAD, Intermittent Explosive Disorder outweighed the applicant’s medically unmitigated offenses of striking another person, impersonating an officer and lying on an official document. The Board also considered the applicant's contentions regarding the separation process and applicant’s rights in the 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 Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s conduct fell below that level of satisfactory service warranting 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 AR20210012704 1