1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 20 August 2021 b. Date Received: 24 August 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). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the Commanding General and the applicant’s chain of command recommended the applicant receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The applicant had honorable service and the only blight came because of becoming addicted to opioids which were prescribed by military doctors in 2014. The applicant’s performance deteriorated once the applicant became addicted to opioids. The applicant was hospitalized three times in the psychiatric ward at least three times after attempting suicide. The applicant suffered from physical and mental wound (PTSD and TBI) which were incurred while performing military duties. b. Board Type and Decision: In a telephonic personal appearance conducted on 17 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 10 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 600-8-24, Paragraph 3-13 / DFS / NA / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 7 January 2019 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458, Charge Sheet: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of Chapter 3, AR 600-8-24, Resignation for the Good of the Service In lieu of Trial by General Court-Martial. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) On 8 January 2016, The Commanding General, DA, Headquarters, U.S. Army Medical Department Center and School, U.S. Army Health Readiness Center of Excellence, JBSA Fort Sam Houston, Texas, carefully reviewed the applicant’s elimination packet and recommendations from the chain of command. The Commanding General recommended the applicant’s resignation in lieu of elimination be approved, and his resignation be characterized as General (Under Honorable Conditions). The Board of Inquiry will proceed until a determination on the applicant’s resignation in lieu of elimination is made by Human Resources Command. On 20 November 2018, The Commanding General, DA, Headquarters, United States Army Fires Center of Excellence and Fort Sill, Fort Sill, Oklahoma, after careful reconsideration recommended approval of the applicant’s request for resignation for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. (4) Legal Consultation Date: 11 December 2015, 6 September 2018, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily resigned from the Army for the good of the service under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, chapter 3, paragraph 3-13 (5) Administrative Separation Board/BOI: The applicant waived any right he had to appear before a board of officers (BOI) or submit matters in explanation, rebuttal or defense concerning the allegations in his case. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: On 19 December 2018, The Department of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board reviewed the Resignation for the Good of the Service in Lieu of General Court-Martial tendered by the applicant. The Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) accepted the applicant’s resignation, and the applicant was discharged from the US Army with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization of service 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 28 June 2004 / 3 years / Active-Duty Service Obligation / 3 years / 19 September 2007 b. Age at Appointment / Education: 25 / BS Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-3 / 13A, Field Artillery / 20 years, 1 month, 2 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 9 June – 29 June 1997 / HD USMA, 30 June 1997 – 14 February 1999 / HD ARNG, 15 February 1999 – 27 April 1999 / NA RA, 28 April 1999 – 30 July 1999 / HD (IADT) (Concurrent Service) ARNG, 31 July 1999 – 25 July 2002 / UNC ARNG, 26 July 2002 – 11 November 2002 / NA ARNG, 12 November 2002 – 7 May 2004 / HD USAR, 8 May 2004 – 27 June 2004 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Iraq (1 February 2008 – 9 July 2008), (3 October 2008 – 4 April 2009), Qatar (5 January 2013 – 28 July 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: MSM, JSCM, ARCOM-3, AAM-3, NDSM-2, ICM-CS, KDSM- 2, OSR-5, JMUA g. Performance Ratings: 25 February 2007 – 20 September 2013 / Best Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Letter of Concern, dated 9 March 2015, the applicant displayed disorderly conduct, failed to obey a lawful order, and resisted arrest when was stopped by JBSA Security Forces. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) dated 16 September 2015, for disorderly conduct, failure to obey a lawful order from a Security Force officer, resisting arrest, failing to pay court-ordered child support, violating a Court ordered restraining order, and for having a relationship with a woman that was not a spouse, and sexually assaulting this same woman on two separate occasions, and domestic violence. General Court-Martial Order Number 3, dated 8 September 2017, reflects the applicant was found guilty of the following offenses: Charge I; Specification 1, without authority, being absent from the unit from 29 January 2016 to 30 January 2016; Specification 2, without authority, being absent from the unit from 4 March 2016 to 14 March 2016; Charge II, having received a lawful command from CPT J.P., his superior commissioned officer, then known by the applicant to be a superior commissioned officer, not to possess firearms, weapons, or ammunition, or words to that effect, did willfully disobey the same on 17 March 2016; Charge III, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by Officer E.R.B., to return to his vehicle, did fail to obey the same by becoming belligerent and refusing to comply with the order on 18 November 2014; Charge IV, Specification 1, resisted being apprehended by Officer S.G., an Air Force Security Police Officer, a person authorized to apprehend the applicant on 18 November 2014; and Charge V, Specification 2, wrongfully use methamphetamine between 15 March 2016 and 18 March 2016. On 31 August 2016, the applicant was sentenced to be confined for 3 months and to be reprimanded. General Court-Martial Order Number 6, dated 19 December 2017, reflects the applicant was found guilty of the following offenses: Charge III, Specification 1, commit an assault upon Miss A.C.B. with force likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm, by squeezing his hand around her throat and shoving her face into a seat cushion of a couch with pressure so as to restrict her breathing on 17 March 2016; Specification 2, unlawfully shove, hit, grab, pull, squeeze, Miss A.C.B. with hands, by shoving her body to the floor; hitting her in the back and buttocks; grabbing her hair and shoving her head into the ground; and squeezing her neck and applying· pressure to drag her body across the ground on 17 March 2016; Specification 3, unlawfully strike Miss P.K.B., on her face with his hand between (15 May 2012 and 18 May 2012); Specification 4, unlawfully strike, drag, and pull Miss P.K.B. with hands, by striking her on her head with his hand and dragging her across the ground by pulling her foot between (6 September 2012 and 7 September 2012); and Charge IV, wrongfully communicate to Miss P.K.B., a threat to kill her or words to that effect, between (1 February 2014 and 31 March 2014). On 21 April 2017, the applicant was sentenced to be confined for 11 months. The applicant received several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct; and an initial WTU counseling. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: Military Confinement X 254 days (21 April 2017 – 4 October 2018) / Released j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: The applicant provides a Transmittal Form, dated 14 November 2018, from the Commander, Personnel Control Facility recommending the applicant receive a General Discharge due the applicant having significant behavioral health issues which could not be resolved in the military. On 15 November 2018, the Commander, USAG recommended approval of the recommendation due to the applicant’s VA Affairs assessment for medical disability claim clearly indicated the applicant had significant mental and physical health issues that would require long term care by the Army and other medical documents pertaining to the applicant’s PTSD, Anxiety, and Depression. (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), dated 25 November 2014, reflects the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of major depressive disorder. Screening for PTSD and TBI done by clinical assessment. MSE, dated 23 March 2015, revealed the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of unspecified anxiety disorder: and PTSD (by history). Axis II narcissistic personality disorder (by history). No evidence of substance abuse. Screening for PTSD and TBI done by clinical assessment. Memorandum, dated 11 December 2015, relates the applicant was diagnosed with an anxiety disorder with comorbid depressive disorder, which the applicant received a 50 percent disabling rating. The applicant disagreed with the rating and believed it should have been at least 70 percent. Informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings, dated 1 December 2015, relates the Board found the applicant was physically unfit and recommended a rating of 50 percent and that the applicant’s disposition be placed on TDRL with a reexamination during August 2016. VA Memorandum, dated 16 December 2015, reflects the applicant’s evaluation of bipolar disorder proposed as 50 percent disabling was confirmed and continued. MSE, dated 22 January 2016, shows the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of Dysthymia, Anxiety Disorder, Unspecified (Per AHLTA) and Axis II, Narcissistic Personality Disorder (Per AHLTA). Although SM endorsed symptoms of PTSD, applicant’s diagnosis of Anxiety Disorder, Unspecified likely accounts for those symptoms. The applicant also screened positive for TBI but has been evaluated by the TBI Clinic. Command is advised to consider the influence of these conditions when determining final disposition. There was no current evidence of mental disease or defect of sufficient severity to warrant disposition through medical channels. The applicant was mentally responsible for his behavior, could distinguish right from wrong and possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate intelligently in any proceedings deemed appropriate by Command. MSE, undated reflects there were concerns for recent suicide attempt and imminent risk to applicant and was admitted to inpatient psychiatric unit at the VA. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, personal statements-3, Power of Attorney, Memorandum, subject: Officer Resignation…, dated 20 November 2018, Transmittal Form, Health Records, medical document, letter from applicant’s father. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is attending a faith-based rehabilitation program. The applicant is completing an Intensive Outpatient Treatment and Rehabilitative Program and after will enter the work force and become a productive member of society. 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 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. (4) Paragraph 1-23c, states a discharge under other than honorable conditions is an administrative separation from the service. A discharge certificate will not be issued. An officer will normally receive an under other than honorable conditions when he or she: Resigns for the good of the Service; is dropped from the rolls (DFR) of the Army in accordance with paragraph 5–9; (3) is involuntarily separated due to misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or for the final revocation of a security clearance under DODI 5200.02 and AR 380–67 as a result of an act or acts of misconduct, including misconduct for which punishment was imposed; and, is discharged following conviction by civilian authorities. (5) Chapter 3 prescribes the tasks, rules, and steps for processing voluntary resignations. Except as provided below, any officer of the Active Army or USAR may tender a resignation under provisions of this chapter. The Secretary of the Army or his designee may accept resignations and orders will be issued by direction of the CG, HRC. An officer whose resignation has been accepted will be separated on the date specified in DA’s orders or as otherwise directed by the DA. An appropriate discharge certificate as specified by the CG, HRC, will be furnished by the appropriate commander at the time the officer is separated. The date of separation, as specified or directed, will not be changed without prior approval of HQDA nor can valid separation orders be revoked after the specified or directed date of separation. Except when resignation is under section VI of this chapter, USAR officers in an AGR status or on ADT, ADSW, TTAD and Soldiers on AD pursuant to 10 USC 12304 (Presidential Selected Reserve) will request resignations under the provisions of AR 135–175. Before such a request is submitted, they must be released from their AD status. (6) Paragraph 3-9 or 3-13 outlines the rules for processing requests for resignation for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by a general court-martial. (7) Paragraph 3-i. An officer separated under this paragraph normally receives characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 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 “DFS” as the appropriate code to assign Officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 3-13, in lieu of trial by court-martial. 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). The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the Commanding General and the applicant’s chain of command recommended the applicant receive a General (under honorable conditions) discharge. The separation authority is not bound by the recommendations of the initiating or intermediate commander and has complete discretion to direct any discharge and characterization of service authorized by the applicable provisions of the regulation as stated in Army Regulation 600-8-24. The applicant had honorable service and the only blight came because of becoming addicted to opioids which were prescribed by military doctors in 2014.The applicant’s performance deteriorated once the applicant became addicted to opioids. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant suffered from physical and mental wounds (PTSD and TBI) which were incurred while performing military duties. The applicant was hospitalized three times in the psychiatric ward at least three times after attempting suicide. The AMHRR indicates the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation that shows the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of Dysthymia, Anxiety Disorder, Unspecified (Per AHLTA) and Axis II, Narcissistic Personality Disorder (PER AHLTA). Although applicant endorsed symptoms of PTSD, applicant’s diagnosis of Anxiety Disorder, Unspecified likely accounts for those symptoms. The applicant also screened positive for TBI but has been evaluated by the TBI Clinic and found not to have a TBI condition. 9. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): None. b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): None. c. Counsel / Witness(es) / Observer(s): None. 10. 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: Anxiety NOS, Depression w/Anxiety, Major Depression Disorder, Dysthymia, and Bipolar Disorder. Additionally, the applicant asserts PTSD and TBI, which may be sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a condition that could mitigate or excuse the discharge. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the applicant did have sufficient evidence of meeting criteria for the mental health conditions of Anxiety NOS, Depression w/Anxiety, Major Depression Disorder, Dysthymia, and Bipolar Disorder, while on active service. The applicant asserts also meeting criteria for PTSD and a TBI while on active 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 there is sufficient evidence the applicant was diagnosed with unspecified anxiety disorder, depression w/anxiety, major depression, dysthymia, bipolar disorder, and PTSD. The applicant asserts that a TBI is also a mitigating factor in his misconduct as well. The applicant was repeatedly evaluated for evidence of residual symptoms associated with a TBI, but there was insufficient evidence to support this conclusion. It was consistently reported the applicant’s primary diagnosis was narcissistic personality disorder, which is a preexisting diagnosis that does not fall under the purview of liberal consideration. Due to the stressors related to the applicant’s relationship and occupational problems, the applicant began to demonstrate symptoms of depression and anxiety, which were repeatedly identified by various behavioral health providers as unspecified anxiety disorder, depression, with anxiety, major depression, and dysthymia. There was concern the applicant also met criteria for bipolar disorder at times. However, there is sufficient evidence to suggest the symptomology associated bipolar disorder was better accounted for by the applicant’s repeated methamphetamine abuse, misuse of prescribed psychiatric medication, and other mental health conditions. Lastly, the applicant asserts that trauma-based disorders (i.e., PTS and PTSD) were mitigating factors in applicant’s misconduct. The applicant did endorse a history of trauma, but applicant repeatedly was evaluated to not fit full criteria for these disorders. For the mental health conditions the applicant did meet criteria for (i.e., Narcissistic PD, unspecified anxiety disorder, depression with anxiety, major depression, dysthymia, methamphetamine, and alcohol abuse), there is no nexus between these disorders and the applicant’s misconduct of resisting arrest, failing to pay child support, violating restraining orders, adultery, domestic violence, assault, and going AWOL given that these conditions do not affect one's ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. In addition, the applicant, through course of treatment, was formally evaluated multiple times, and was found consistently to be able to participate in his separation proceedings and to distinguish the difference between right and wrong and act in the accordance of right. There is sufficient evidence to concur with this repeated opine. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the ADRB’s application 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 unspecified anxiety disorder, depression w/anxiety, major depression, dysthymia, bipolar disorder, PTSD and assert TBI outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation for misconduct - of disorderly conduct, failure to obey a lawful order from a Security Force Officer, resisting arrest, failing to pay child support, violating restraining orders, adultery, domestic violence, assault, and going AWOL - for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). The Board considered this contention and concurred with the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, and determine that despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s unspecified anxiety disorder, depression w/anxiety, major depression, dysthymia, bipolar disorder, PTSD and assert TBI diagnoses did not excuse or mitigate the Unacceptable Conduct - by committing the misconduct of disorderly conduct, failure to obey a lawful order from a Security Force Officer, resisting arrest, failing to pay child support, violating restraining orders, adultery, domestic violence, assault, and going AWOL diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable or General discharge at the time of separation. Thus, the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends the Commanding General and the applicant’s chain of command recommended the applicant receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The Board considered this contention and determined that the separation authority is not bound by the recommendations of the initiating or intermediate commander and has complete discretion to direct any discharge and characterization of service authorized by the applicable provisions of the regulation as stated in Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 1-23c (3) states that an Officer can be involuntarily separated due to misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or for the final revocation of a security clearance under DODI 5200.02 and AR 380–67 as a result of an act or acts of misconduct, including misconduct for which punishment was imposed. Also, paragraph 4-2b, reflects reasons for elimination when one of the following or similar conditions exist, elimination action may be or will be initiated as indicated: substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interests of national security, and/or has derogatory information. The applicant’s AMHRR reflects the applicant received a GOMOR which is considered derogatory information per AR 600-37 (Unfavorable Information). Ultimately, the Board determined that the assertion alone did not outweigh the Unacceptable Conduct - by committing the misconduct of disorderly conduct, failure to obey a lawful order from a Security Force Officer, resisting arrest, failing to pay child support, violating restraining orders, adultery, domestic violence, assault, and going AWOL. (3) The applicant had honorable service and the only blight came because of becoming addicted to opioids which were prescribed by military doctors in 2014. The Board considered this contention and determined that, 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. 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. The Board found that the applicant’s service was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge or receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily resigned from the Army for the good of the service under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, chapter 3, paragraph 3-13. The Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) accepted the applicant’s resignation, and applicant was discharged from the US Army with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization of service. The applicant was properly and equitable discharged therefore, no relief is warranted at this time. (4) The applicant suffered from physical and mental wound (PTSD and TBI) which were incurred while performing military duties. The Board considered this contention and the applicant’s assertion of PTSD and TBI and concurred with the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, and determined that the applicant’s was repeatedly evaluated for evidence of residual symptoms associated with a TBI, but there was insufficient evidence to support this conclusion. The applicant was also screened for PTSD but was diagnosed with an unspecified anxiety disorder as detailed in paragraphs 10a (3). c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, considering the current evidence of record. 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, there was insufficient mitigation of all the applicant’s misconduct detailed in paragraphs 10a (3) and 10b (1). The applicant’s unspecified anxiety disorder, depression with anxiety, major depression, dysthymia, bipolar disorder, PTSD and asserted TBI diagnoses did not excuse or mitigate the Unacceptable Conduct - by committing the misconduct of disorderly conduct, failure to obey a lawful order from a Security Force Officer, resisting arrest, failing to pay child support, violating restraining orders, adultery, domestic violence, assault, and going AWOL. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. ? 11. 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 AR20210015342 1