1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 19 August 2020 b. Date Received: 01 June 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 under other than honorable conditions. The applicant requests an upgrade to their characterization of service to show as an honorable discharge and a narrative reason change. (1) The applicant states, in effect, they were charged with conspiracy to commit larceny less than $500, at that time they were having a hard time adjusting from transitioning from a line unit to a garrison unit, they were having daily issues, abusing drugs, and having marriage issues. After the experience during wartime missions, upon redeployment, they would have done just about anything to return home, so they agreed to sign the voluntary request to be discharged In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, however, they were unaware that a UOTHC characterization of service was unfavorable. (2) They were later diagnosed with PTSD and contends the undiagnosed PTSD they were suffering from at the time of their misconduct is what caused them to exhibit behavior out of their character. Although the unit saw a top-notch noncommissioned officer turn into a s__ bag, they did nothing to intervene. They have service-connected PTSD from the VA, and continued treatment and education has given them a better mind set. The applicant regrets the decision and wishes the undiagnosed PTSD would have been identified and treated while serving. The applicant was advised that applying to the Military Review Board would upgrade the characterization of service to Honorable; the applicant was an honorable soldier who lost their way like so many other veterans did. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 29 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: In lieu of trial by court martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE- 4 / UOTHC b. Date of Discharge: 29 August 2008 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 12 August 2008 (2) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 12 Aug 2008 the applicant waived consideration of the case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 18 Aug 2008 / UOTHC 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 23 May 2007/ 4 years, 14 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / High School graduate / 93 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 31B10 Military Police / 9 Years, 24 Days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: Concurrent Service e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany (20 January 2000 – 19 November 2002)/ Cuba (30 July 2003 - 23 July 2004); Croatia (23 February 2001- 9 April 2001). f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, AAM-4, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWTEM, GWTSM, NOPDR, ASR, OSR-2, DRV-MECH g. Performance Ratings: 01 November 2007 – 17 March 2008 / Not Qualified (1) Competence rated needs improvement much. (2) Responsibility and accountability rated needs improvement much. h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: (1) A Personnel Qualification Record dated signed as reviewed by the applicant on 1 February 2005 provides negative information in Section V, Personal and Family Data. (2) An Enlisted Record Brief provides at the time he served the applicant was married with one dependent child; and Section I – Assignment, OS (Overseas)/Deployment shows “0” for combat tours, the applicant completed the following tours, and their Dwell Time started on 23 July 2004. * 20030730-20040723 – CU (Cuba), 12-month operational tour * 20010223-20010409 – HR (Croatia), 2-month operational tour * 20000120-20020119 – GM (Germany), a 24-month long tour (3) 19 September 2005, the applicant received a nonjudicial punishment for having sexual relations with someone other than their spouse as a married soldier. Punishment consisted of reduction in rank to specialist (E-4), forfeiture of $750 for 2 months, and extra duty and restriction to post for 45 days. (4) Orders 052-0413, provides the applicant was promoted to sergeant (a second time) effective 1 March 2007. (5) A DD Form 4 (Enlistment/ Reenlistment document) provides that on 23 May 2007 the applicant reenlisted into the U.S Army for a period of 4 years. (6) A Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report from period of 01 November 2007 – 17 March 2008 reflects that the applicant violated a direct order, by consuming alcohol after enrollment into Alcohol and Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) and failed to attend and complete mandatory appointments. However, the AMHRR is void of the documents showing the specific circumstances (i.e. substance type, self-referral, command referral, ASAP plan of action). (7) A DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) shows that on 30 July 2008 the applicant was charged with violating three Articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). (a) Charge I, Article 81 (Conspiracy) – Specification. On/about 23 May 2007, conspire with three other MP soldiers, to commit an offense, housebreaking into the Central Issuing Facility (CIF) warehouse, with the intent to commit larceny, where the applicant and a noncommissioned officer forcibly opened the door and unlawfully entered with the knowledge, they would steal property of the U.S. (b) Charge II, Article 121 (Larceny and Wrongful Appropriation) – Specification. On/about 23 May 2007, the applicant did steal military equipment from the CIF warehouse: a Kevlar helmet, t-shirts, socks, and Army Combat Uniforms, a value of less than $500. (c) Charge II, Article 130 (Housebreaking) – Specification. On/about 23 May 2007, the applicant unlawfully entered the CIF with intent to commit a criminal offense: larceny. (8) On 12 August 2008 the applicant voluntarily requested discharge ILO Trial by Court- Martial with two statements of support referencing his good work ethic. Paragraph 4, of this request states: * “I may be discharged under conditions other than honorable….and furnished an Other Than Honorable Discharge certificate.” * I have been advised…the possible effects of an Other Than Honorable Discharge.” * “I understand I will automatically be reduced… upon the approval of an Other Than Honorable Discharge.” * I also understand…because of an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge.” * The signed statement by legal counsel states “Under Other Than Honorable” conditions. (9) A DD Form 214 shows the applicant was discharged accordingly on 29 August 2008. Item 18 (Remarks) of their DD Form 214 is missing required mandatory statement regarding the use, completion of first term of service, and continuous and reenlistment periods of service. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None. However, on 1 December 2022, the Army Review Boards Agency requested the applicant to provide VA or other medical documentation in support of the PTSD claim on their application. As of date, the applicant has not submitted the requested documents. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: A DD Form 293, self-authored letter, a letter from the National Personnel Records Center advising they were forwarding the DD Form 293 to the Army Review Boards Agency, and a copy of their DD Form 214. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends they are under continued treatment and education for PTSD, however, did not submit the requested supporting documentation. 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 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel, it provides: (1) An honorable discharge is separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service has generally met standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. (2) A general discharge is separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it 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. It may be issued for misconduct. In a case in which an UOTHC is authorized by regulation, a member may be awarded an honorable or general discharge, if during the current enlistment period of obligated service, they have been awarded a personal decoration or if warranted by the circumstances of a specific case. (4) Chapter 10, Discharge in Lieu of Trail by Court Martial is applicable to members who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service. The request could be submitted at any time after the charges had been preferred. Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, an under other than honorable conditions discharge was normally considered appropriate, unless the record was so meritorious it would warrant an honorable. (a) After receiving legal counseling, the soldier may elect to submit a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. The soldier will sign a written request, certifying that they have been counseled, understands their rights, and may receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions. (b) The following data will accompany the request for discharge: * A copy of the court-martial Charge Sheet (DD Form 458) * Report of medical examination and mental status evaluation, if conducted * A complete copy of all reports of investigation * Any statement, documents, or other matter considered by the commanding officer in making his/her recommendation, including any information presented for consideration by the soldier or consulting counsel. * A statement of any reasonable ground for belief that the soldier is, or was at the time of misconduct, mentally defective, deranged, or abnormal. When appropriate, evaluation by a psychiatrist will be included. (c) Figure 10-1 of this regulation in effect at the time and currently in effect provides a sample format for requesting a discharge In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. It provides for paragraph 4, the characterization of service referred to for possible effects and benefits should be “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.” f. Army Regulation 600-85 (Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP)) governs the program and identifies Army policy on alcohol and other drug abuse, and responsibilities. The ASAP is a command program that emphasizes readiness and personal responsibility. The ultimate decision regarding separation or retention of abusers is the responsibility of the Soldier’s chain of command. Abuse of alcohol or the use of illicit drugs by military personnel is inconsistent with Army values and the standards of performance, discipline, and readiness necessary to accomplish the Army’s mission. (1) Unit commanders must intervene early and refer all Soldiers suspected or identified as alcohol and/or drug abusers to the ASAP. The unit commander should recommend enrollment based on the Soldier’s potential for continued military service in terms of professional skills, behavior, and potential for advancement. (2) ASAP participation is mandatory for all Soldiers who are command referred. Failure to attend a mandatory counseling session may constitute a violation of Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). (3) Alcohol and/or other drug abusers, and in some cases dependent alcohol users, may be enrolled in the ASAP when such enrollment is clinically recommended. e. Soldiers who fail to participate adequately in, or to respond successfully to, rehabilitation will be processed for administrative separation and not be provided another opportunity for rehabilitation except under the most extraordinary circumstances, as determined by the Clinical Director in consultation with the unit commander. g. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of “KFS” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court martial. h. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army, and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: * RE-1 Applies to: Person completing his or her term of active service who is considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. Eligibility: Qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. * RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. * RE-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. i. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) This regulation prescribes policy and procedural guidance relating to transition management. It consolidates the policies, principles of support, and standards of service regarding processing personnel for transition and explains separation document preparation. It provides the following for Block 18 (Remarks): (1) Mandatory entry: “The information contained herein is subject to computer matching within the Department of Defense (DOD) or with any other affected Federal or non-Federal agency for verification purposes and to determine eligibility for, and/or continued compliance with, the requirements of a federal benefits program.” (2) Mandatory entry: “SOLDIER (HAS) OR (HAS NOT) COMPLETED FIRST FULL TERM OF SERVICE.” This information assists the State in determining eligibility for unemployment compensation entitlement. The following guidance will help determine which entry to use: (a) To determine if an enlisted Soldier has completed the first full term of enlistment, refer to the enlistment contract and any extensions to those initial enlistment documents and compare the term of enlistment to the net service in block 12c of the DD Form 214. If Soldier has completed or exceeded the initial enlistment, enter “HAS.” If block 12c of the DD Form 214 is less than the Soldier’s commitment, enter “HAS NOT.” (b) Routinely, a Soldier should not be considered to have completed the first full term of service if separation occurs before the end of the initial contracted period of service. However, if a Soldier reenlists before the completion of that period of service, the first term of service is effectively redefined by virtue of the reenlistment contract. (3) For enlisted Soldiers with more than one enlistment period during the time covered by this DD Form 214, enter “IMMEDIATE REENLISTMENTS THIS PERIOD” and specify inclusive dates for each period of reenlistment. For Soldiers who have previously reenlisted without being issued a DD Form 214 and are separated with any characterization of service except “Honorable,” enter “Continuous Honorable Active Service From” (first day of service for which DD Form 214 was not issued) Until (date before commencement of current enlistment). Then, enter the specific periods of reenlistment as prescribed above. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. a. A review of the PQR and ERB provide in the first 7 years of service the applicant completed a long tour in Germany, a 2-month operational tour in Croatia, and their most recent, a 12-month operational tour in Cuba which ended on 23 July 2004. Additionally, the applicant successfully completed Primary Leadership Development Course, received an Army Achievement Medal, was promoted to sergeant a second time on 1 March 2007. It appears at some point after 1 February 2005 the applicant got married. In September 2005, the applicant accepted NJP for adultery on two occasions. b. After having 7 years, 9 months, and 19 days of concurrent service in the military occupational specialty (MOS) 31B (Military Police), on 23 May 2007, at the rank of sergeant, the applicant reenlisted for a period of 4 years. An NCOER provides at some point between 1 November 2007 and 17 March 2008 the applicant was enrolled in ASAP and was not attending required appointments. c. On 30 July 2008 charges were preferred against the applicant for conspiracy, larceny and wrongful appropriation, and housebreaking committed, specifically breaking into the post CIF, and stealing a Kevlar helmet, socks, t-shirts, and Army Combat Uniforms of value less than $500, on or about 23 May 2007, the same day of their reenlistment on 23 May 2007. As a result, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. Review of the request signed by the applicant contains potential administrative error where there is reference to effects, benefits, and discharge certificate for “Under Honorable Conditions” vice “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions” as shown in Army Regulation 635-200, Figure 10-1 and that a general discharge is a separation from the Army “under honorable conditions.” (1) The available records are void of a copy of investigative reports and chain of command endorsement(s) regarding the characterization of service, however, notwithstanding administrative error in identification of characterization of service in the applicant’s separation request, the appropriate authority approved the request with a UOTHC characterization of service and reduction to lowest enlisted grade. A DD Form 214 shows on 29 August 2008 they were discharged accordingly, completing 9 years and 25 days of net active service. (2) The applicant completed less than one day of their 4-year contractual obligation prior to the misconduct that led to their discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10 (In Lieu of Trial by Court Martial). (3) Review of the available evidence provides administrative error in Item 18 (Remarks) of the DD Form 214 which fails to provide mandatory remarks required according to Army Regulation 635-8 regarding the use of the DD Form 214, completion of the first term of service, and concurrent and reenlistment period of service. d. Army Regulation 635-200 states a Chapter 10 is a voluntary discharge request in-lieu of trial by court martial. A discharge under other than honorable conditions normally is appropriate for a soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the soldier’s overall record during the current enlistment. For soldiers who have completed entry-level status, characterization of service as honorable is not authorized unless the soldier’s record is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization clearly would be improper. (1) A medical and mental examination was not required for a voluntary request ILO Trial By Court-Martial but could have been requested by the service member. The applicant’s OMPF is void of evidence indicating whether the applicant requested either examination. (2) Documents supports that the applicant indicated speaking to legal counsel before voluntarily requesting separation however no legal counseling form was found in the applicant’s records. e. 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: the applicant held in-service diagnoses of Anxiety Disorder Not Otherwise Specified and Adjustment Disorder. Post-service, the applicant was initially service connected for Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD), currently Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held in-service diagnoses of Anxiety Disorder Not Otherwise Specified and Adjustment Disorder. (3) Does the condition or experience excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that Conspiracy, Larceny, Wrongful Appropriation, and housebreaking are not a progression or sequela of trauma. Additionally, it is not reflective of any cognitive impairment given it requires conscious planning of multiple steps over time including coordination and attempt at evasion. (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 Anxiety Disorder Not Otherwise Specified, Adjustment Disorder, and PTSD outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation for Conspiracy, Larceny, Wrongful Appropriation, and housebreaking for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends his unit was unaware of their undiagnosed PTSD and was a top-notch NCO who was turning into s__ bag. The available evidence provides that upon receipt of their application the Army Review Boards Agency sent a letter providing guidance and requesting the applicant provide additional evidence in support of application, specifically, their post-service diagnosed Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and/or their VA Disability records. The applicant did not respond. The available evidence also provides the applicant overcame the NJP and was promoted a second time to sergeant. Aside from the NJP and the misconduct that led to their discharge, the record is void of any other disciplinary action and/or counseling’s; the separation request was accompanied with two statements from noncommissioned officer who commended the applicant’s work ethic and performance. The Board considered this contention and noted that this action is a procedural step which is part of a normal process when an alternative forum is chosen. In this case, the charges were dismissed because the applicant requested to be discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial and the convening authority approved that request. There was no evidence presented to the Board to convince the Board of any mitigating circumstances. (2) The applicant contends they returned from several deployments, having issues with day-to-day life, an extremely hard marriage life, abuse of alcohol and transitioning from a line unit into a garrison unit. The Board considered this contention and determined that there is insufficient evidence in the applicant’s official record or provided by the applicant that the applicant was not provided sufficient access to behavioral health and substance abuse service resources. Therefore, no change is warranted. (3) The applicant contends they did not realize an “Other Than Honorable” discharge was such a bad discharge. Review of the request signed by the applicant contains potential administrative error where there is reference to effects, benefits, and discharge certificate for “Under Honorable Conditions” vice “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions” as shown in Army Regulation 635-200, Figure 10-1 and that a general discharge is a separation from the Army “under honorable conditions.” The Board considered this contention and noted that this action is a procedural step which is part of a normal process when an alternative forum is chosen. In this case, the charges were dismissed because the applicant requested to be discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial and the convening authority approved that request. There was no evidence presented to the Board to convince the Board of any mitigating circumstances. c. The Board determined 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 of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s Anxiety Disorder NOS, Adjustment Disorder, and PTSD did not excuse or medically mitigate the Conspiracy, Larceny, Wrongful Appropriation, and housebreaking offense. (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 AR20220009172 1