1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 22 March 2022 b. Date Received: 22 March 2022 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is General (Under Honorable Conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to Honorable and their rank upgraded from PV2 to their highest earned rank of SPC before discharge. b. The applicant seeks relief contending, they have served an integral role as an IT Contractor for the Department of Defense (DoD) in support of Walter Reed National Military Medical Center under their esteemed mentors, currently serving with Department of State in the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operation (OBO) under the Director, who also provides tremendous support and mentorship for their continued professional and personal growth. Instead of remitting to deep depression from the overwhelming events of an unplanned and premature exit from the service, they chose to dedicate their time to improving themselves and their situation. They have acquired various IT certifications and will earn their college degree in Information Technology and Information Systems by this fall. Resiliency has been key post discharge in dealing with feelings of deep personal and professional loss; however, the applicant is surrounded by the support of their peers, supervisors, and family to stay the course despite the administrative results. They have continued to receive outstanding encouragement and firmly believes that the Army is an organization that endorses rehabilitation of its service members, even its veterans; the applicant has proudly served on active duty and continues to proudly serve in their current capacity. c. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 13 December 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) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 10 May 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant’s request for voluntary discharge under provision of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: undated / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 19 February 2013 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / High School Graduate / 114 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 25U1O Sig Support System Specialist / 3 years, 7 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None / (3 October 2013 – 18 September 2014) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2, ASUA, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR, COA g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: (1) On 17 October 2012, the applicant enlisted in the United States Army Reserve’s Delayed Entry Program as an E-1; they enlisted in the Regular Army 13 February 2013 for 4 years as an E-2. (2) The Enlisted Record Brief provides the applicant served a yearlong tour in Korea from 3 October 2013 to 18 September 2014. On 12 and 19 February 2015, they received an Army Achievement Medal and promoted to SPC; they were demoted to PV2 on 30 March 2017. A Suspend Favorable Personnel Action (FLAG) was flagged on their record for (XA) [which appears to be an erroneous code IAW AR 600-8-2] on 21 October 2016 and a field-initiated involuntary separation (BA) on 31 March 2017. (3) The AMHRR is void of the partial separation proceedings, however the record does provide the appropriate separation authority approved the discharge effective 10 May 2017 with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). (4) A DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release of Discharge from Active Duty) provides * Authority: AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c * Narrative Reason: Misconduct (Serious Offense) * SPD Code: JKQ * Reentry Code: RE-3 * Service Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) * Total NET Active Service this Period: 4 years, 2 months, 22 days * Remarks: Extension of service was at the request and for the convenience of the government; Member has completed first full term of service. * Lost Time: None * Signature: e-signed (electronically signed) i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge); On 12 March 2022, LTC wrote a letter of recommendation on behalf of the applicant, providing a sincere and genuine endorsement for the applicant, who served under the LTC’s command in Fort Hood, TX from 2016-2017. The applicant directly handled all radio communications support and training, provided troubleshooting support on all information technology (IT) related issues ranging from computers to video teleconferencing. LTC had direct observation of the applicant’s work ethic, character, and customer service skills which were all pivotal to the success of their section providing world class service and support. Upon the LTC’s arrival to the section, the applicant was in promotable status and was pending professional military education slating to compete for the next rank. Already proving to be mission and career focused, the applicant set the tone and helped to motivate their peers. They were endeared by members in their section for the applicant’s teamwork attitude and genuine care for others. The applicant’s resilience during their administrative transition out of the service was admirable and their work performance did not falter. The applicant is goal-driven and a dependable person who has been consistent in furthering their career which quickly landed them a position with the Department of State. Their determination to continue their skillsets outside of the military showcases their commitment to contribute as a subject matter expert. The applicant encompasses all the qualities of a uniformed service member and their discharge should be adjusted to reflect their true service to the Army; LTC believes the circumstances surrounding their final discharge status were not objective or impartial. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant served an integral role as an IT Contractor for the Department of Defense (DoD) in support of Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. They are currently serving with Department of State in the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operation (OBO) under the Director who also provides tremendous support and mentorship for their continued professional and personal growth. They have acquired various IT certifications and will earn their college degree in Information Technology and Information Systems by this fall. The applicant is surrounded by the support of their peers, supervisors, and family to stay the course despite the administrative results while currently serving in their current capacity. 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) 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. 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. 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. (5) Chapter 15 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 “JKK” 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. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. a. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. A review of the record provides administrative irregularity in the proper retention of records, specifically the AMHRR is void of partial separation proceedings and whether or not the applicant requested a mental health and/or mental examination; based on this we are unable to provide specific facts and circumstances surrounding their misconduct and separation. (1) The available evidence provides the applicant enlisted as a PV2 and promoted to SPC, later demoted to PV2, served a yearlong tour in Korea, and was awarded two Army Achievement Medals as well as the Army Good Conduct Medal. They were discharged for misconduct (serious offense); notwithstanding the lack of evidence, the appropriate approval authority directed the separation under the provisions of AR 14-12c, with a characterization of service of General (Under Honorable Conditions). (2) The remarks item of their DD Form 214 provides the applicant’s net service of 4 years, 2 months, and 22 days; extension of service was at the request and for the convenience of the government. The applicant has completed their first full term of service. b. Chapter?14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating 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. c. Published DoD 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. 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 DO, unspecified; Dysthymic Disorder; Uncomplicated Bereavement. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found that the BH conditions, Dysthymic DO, Uncomplicated Bereavement and Anxiety DO, unspecified, were diagnosed while applicant was in the military. (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 Anxiety Disorder, unspecified, Dysthymic DO and Uncomplicated Bereavement, these conditions do not mitigate his multiple SHARP offenses as these conditions do not affect one’s ability to tell 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 Dysthymic DO, Uncomplicated Bereavement and Anxiety DO outweigh the basis for applicant’s separation – sexual harassment, sexual assault, and dereliction of duty – for the aforementioned reason(s). b. Response to Contention(s): The applicant seeks relief contending, they have served an integral role as an IT Contractor for the Department of Defense (DoD) in support of Walter Reed National Military Medical Center under their esteemed mentors, currently serving with Department of State in the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operation (OBO) under the Director, who also provides tremendous support and mentorship for their continued professional and personal growth. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s post service accomplishments do not outweigh the misconduct. 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 Dysthymic DO, Uncomplicated Bereavement and Anxiety DO did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of sexual harassment, sexual assault and dereliction of duty. The Board members recommend the applicant pursue a Personal Appearance to provide further information. 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. (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 AR20220004484 1