1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 6 March 2021 b. Date Received: 26 July 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 changes in the character of service, separation code, reentry code and the narrative reason for separation. b. The applicant states their discharge was improper because their changes in character and behaviors was due to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and improperly attributed to their wrong separation authority. The applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder while still in the service. Shortly after their discharge the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) evaluation provided a diagnosis of PTSD with a 100-percent disability rating. (1) The applicant states their separated from the U.S. Army was characterized as under less than honorable conditions. At the time the applicant did not understand what exactly was going on with their ability in decision making or behavior. They have since learned of the suffering from severe PTSD with Depression and Anxiety, as well as a moral injury. Not being aware of those things at the time, they pushed family members away and started to take unnecessary risks, personal and professional. The applicant's unit climate at the time was not one that supported mental health claims, so they self-medicated with alcohol. (2) The applicant has learned how their mental health condition has impacted the unit and their family. They have since reached out for resources to deal with the diagnosis. Knowing there could have been help earlier to avoid the negative impact made on everyone bothers the applicant. They have done what was possible to make it right with their command, the Soldiers, and their family. A big part of making it right for the applicant is in asking for this discharge upgrade. Prior to getting recommended for an administrative separation their professional career was exemplary. c. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 27 September 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct, (Serious Offense) / Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honor Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 24 May 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 17 August 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: * improperly used a Government Vehicle (GOV) to go to a commercial fast-food restaurant with two Initial Entry Trainee (IET) Soldiers on board * being alone with an IET Student in a GOV * violated a lawful general regulation, to wit: Army Regulation 600-20 (Army Command Policy), paragraph 4-15a, by wrongfully engaging in a prohibited relationship with an IET trainee (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 1 August 2016 (5) Administrative Separation Board: (a) On 15 December 2017, the administrative separation board convened, and the applicant was represented by counsel. The board recommended the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. (b) On 11 January 2018, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 11 January 2018 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 3 June 2016 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / Bachelor's Degree / 126 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 68W1O Health Care Specialist / 11 years, 11 months, 17 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (2 December 2007 – 14 February 2009, 13 March 2010 – 8 March 2011); Afghanistan (1 April 2012 – 8 December 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-3CS, ARCOM-6, AAM-3, MUC-2, VUA, AGCM-3, NDSM, GWOTSM, ACM-1CS, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-2, NATOMDL, CMB g. Performance Ratings: Period Rating 1 JUL 2010 – 30 JUN 2011 Among the Best 1 JUL 2011 – 17 JAN 2012 Among the Best 17 JAN 2012 – 16 JAN 2013 Among the Best 17 JAN 2013 – 30 SEP 2013 Among the Best 30 SEP 2013 – 29 SEP 2014 Among the Best 30 SEP 2014 – 10 NOV 2015 Among the Best 11 NOV 2015 – 10 NOV 2016 Highly Qualified 28 JAN 2017 – 28 JUL 2017 Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: (1) A memorandum, Company B, 232nd Medical Battalion subject: Appointment as Investigating Officer, dated 27 June 2016, appointed an Investigating Officer to conduct a Commander's Inquiry to investigate whether between March 2016 and the present, the applicant engaged in an inappropriate relationship with and Initial Entry Trainee (IET) in600-20, paragraph 4-14 (Relationship Between Soldiers of Different Grade), 4-15 (Other Prohibited Relationships), and 14-16 (Fraternization); Army Regulation 600-100 (Army Leadership), paragraph 2-1; and Article 92 (Failure to Obey Order or Regulation), Uniform Code of Miliary Justice. (2) A memorandum, 232nd Medical Battalion subject: Investigation Findings (Inappropriate Relationship), dated 28 July 2016, provides the Investigating Officer conducted an informal investigation into an inappropriate relationship between the applicant and [redacted]. The Investigating Officer made the following findings, conclusions, and recommendations. (a) Findings – the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the applicant and (redacted) knowingly participated in an inappropriate relationship and that the applicant took and purchased food for (redacted) at a fast-food restaurant. (b) Conclusion – The applicant and (redacted) engaged in an inappropriate relationship and interacted on several occasions without proper battle buddies present. The applicant violated Battalion Policy Number 21, by allowing and taking (redacted) to eat at a restaurant. Battalion Policy Number 21 pertains to Platoon Sergeants transporting Advanced Individual Training Soldiers to civilian establishments and restaurants using a GOV [government vehicle]. (c) Recommendations – recommend the applicant and (redacted) receive a Field Grade Article 15 for engaging in an inappropriate relationship, the applicant be pulled from Platoon Sergeant duty, the applicant received a company grade Article 15 for violation of Battalion Policy number 21. (3) General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), 30 November 2016, reflects the applicant was reprimanded for improperly using a GOV to leave a training site with two trainees, which was used to purchase food for one of the two trainees. On a second occasion, the applicant was observed in a GOV alone with one of the same two trainees previously transported in the GOV. Two Soldiers observed the applicant enter the barracks room of that same trainee in April 2016, in the early morning hours, where the applicant remained for over an hour. (a) On 8 December 2016, the applicant acknowledged the GOMOR, understanding their rights and elected to submit a statement on their behalf. (b) On 15 December 2016, the applicant submitted a response to the GOMOR requesting it not be filed in their permanent records, and stated, in pertinent part, they take full responsibility for their actions, however, the information in the GOMOR was only partially correct. The applicant took full responsibility regarding GOV, but adamantly denied entering the soldier’s room at any time, for any duration, on any morning; They had always done what is right, and any claim of a relationship with anyone but their spouse was an egregious insult against their character. The delay in the investigation has ruined their ability to gather objective data that would prove their innocence to such a claim and should not be included in the GOMOR. In regard to the being observed in the GOV with the trainee alone, they accepted responsibility, however, it was for less than a minute, the trainee was in the back of the vehicle and the applicant was back to duty within 15 minutes addressing 12 trainees who were conducting themselves inappropriately. None of these 12 trainees were approached by the investigating officer. (c) On 3 January 2017, the GOMOR authority directed the reprimand be placed permanently in the applicant’s official military records. (4) A DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 6 June 2017, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command, to include administrative separation. The applicant was mentally responsible with a clear- thinking process. There was no behavior health diagnosis. The Behavior Health Provider states the applicant does not present a psychiatric condition that would cause the applicant to fall below medical retention requirement. (5) A memorandum, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 232nd Medical Battalion, subject: Separation under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, Commission of a Serious Offense, [Applicant], dated 10 August 2017, the applicant's company commander notified the applicant of the initiating action for separation from the service for the commission of a serious offense. The reason for the company commander's proposed action includes the applicant improperly used a GOV to go to a commercial fast-food restaurant with two IET Soldiers, the applicant was also alone with an IET Soldier in a GOV and the applicant violated a lawful general regulation, to wit: Army Regulation 600-20, paragraph 4-15a, by wrongfully engaging in a prohibited relationship with an IET trainee. (6) A memorandum, Headquarters, U.S. Army Medical Department Center and School, subject: Separation under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, Commission of a Serious Offense, [Applicant], dated 11 January 2018, the commanding general, having reviewed the separation packet and administrative separation board's findings and recommendations on the applicant, and all consideration of all matters, directed the applicant be separated from the Army prior to the expiration of current term of service and that his service be characterized as Under Other Than Honorable conditions. (7) On 24 May 2018, the applicant was discharged accordingly, the DD Form 214 provides the applicant completed 11 year, 11 months, and 17 days of net active service this period. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: VA disability rating decision, dated 25 March 2019 and VA Letter, dated 27 March 2019, reflecting the applicant was rated 50-percent disability rating for PTSD (with anxious distress and persistent depressive disorder). (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, VA Disability Rating Decision, and a VA Letter. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Employment with Quality, Timeliness, Customer Service company and completed post graduate degree in Organizational Development. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1553, (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, Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 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 (DoD) 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 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; Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1553; and DoD Directive 1332.41 and DoD Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), dated 19 December 2016, provided the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) 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. (2) 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. (3) An 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. (4) Chapter 14 (Separation for Misconduct) established policy and prescribed procedures for separating members for misconduct. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. Paragraph 14-12c (Commission of a Serious Offense), stated a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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. (5) Chapter 15 (Secretarial Plenary Authority), currently in effect, provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army’s best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary’s approved designee as announced in updated memoranda. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. 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 “JKQ” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). 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: (1) 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. (2) 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. (3) 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. g. Title 38, U.S. Code, Sections 1110 and 1131, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service. The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service. The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned. Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual's medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge, or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by the agency. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): a. Standard of Review. The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by DOD Instruction 1332.28. b. A review of the available evidence provides the applicant received a general officer memorandum of reprimand for improper use of a government owned vehicle and inappropriate relationship with Advanced Individual Training trainee. As a result, separation proceedings were initiated, and an Administrative Separation Board recommended the applicant to be separated from the service with an Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization of service. They completed 11 year, 11 months, and 17 days net active service this period and 5 months and 27 days of their reenlistment contractual obligation prior to the first date of the indiscipline that led to their being discharged. d. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separation members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense and convictions by civil authorities. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. 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. e. Neither the applicant nor the AMHRR provide documentation of PTSD and/or TBI diagnosis prior to the applicant's discharge from the service. f. Published Department of Defense guidance indicates that the guidance is not intended to interfere or impede on the Board's statutory independence. The Board will determine the relative weight of the action that led to the discharge and whether it supports relief or not. In reaching its determination, the Board shall consider the applicant's petition, available records and/or submitted documents in support of the petition. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. KURTA FACTORS. 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: PTSD (100% SC) (Note-diagnosis of Adjustment DO is subsumed under diagnosis of PTSD). (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that VA service connection establishes that the applicant's diagnosis of PTSD began 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 there are no mitigating BH conditions. While the applicant has been diagnosed with PTSD (100%SC) and Adjustment DO with mixed anxiety and depression, neither of these diagnoses mitigates the misconduct of engaging in an inappropriate relationship with a trainee, violating a general order by engaging in the inappropriate relationship with a trainee and improperly using a government vehicle given that neither of his BH conditions affects his ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. Regarding the applicant’s history of multiple blast exposures while deployed to Afghanistan in 2012, record review indicates that these blast exposures did not result in impaired functioning as evidenced by the applicant’s statement to his doctor on 18 Sep 2013 and his history of receiving multiple superior performance ratings* in the years following his deployments to Iraq (2 Dec 2007-14 Feb 2009) and Afghanistan (1 Apr 2012-8 Dec 2012). (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Based on liberally considering all the evidence before the Board, the ADRB determined that the condition or experience did not outweigh the basis of separation. b. Response to Contentions: (1) The applicant contends their discharge was improper because their changes in character and behavior was due to PTSD and improperly attributed to their wrong separation authority. The board considered this contention an determined that while the applicant has been diagnosed with PTSD (100%SC) and Adjustment DO with mixed anxiety and depression, neither of these diagnoses mitigates the misconduct of engaging in an inappropriate relationship with a trainee, violating a general order by engaging in the inappropriate relationship with a trainee and improperly using a government vehicle given that neither of his BH conditions affects his ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. (2) The applicant contends the VA provided a diagnosis of PTSD with a 100-percent disability rating. The board considered this contention and the Board's Medical Advisor found that VA service connection establishes that the applicant's diagnosis of PTSD began during military service. While the applicant has been diagnosed with PTSD (100%SC) and Adjustment DO with mixed anxiety and depression, neither of these diagnoses mitigates the misconduct of engaging in an inappropriate relationship with a trainee, violating a general order by engaging in the inappropriate relationship with a trainee and improperly using a government vehicle given that neither of his BH conditions affects his ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. 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: (3) 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 BH diagnoses did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of misconduct of engaging in an inappropriate relationship with a trainee, violating a general order by engaging in the inappropriate relationship with a trainee and improperly using a government vehicle. 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. 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. (4) 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. (5) 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 AR20210017257 1