1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 1 October 2022 b. Date Received: 5 December 2022 c. Counsel: Yes 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, through counsel, an upgrade to honorable, and changes to the separation program designator (SPD) code, reentry eligibility (RE) code to 1, and characterization of discharge (narrative reason) to “Secretarial Authority,” and removal of derogatory information. The applicant through counsel, seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge is inequitable and has served its purpose. This appeal is based on three errors: (1) the underlying basis of the applicant’s separation was procedurally defective at the time of the discharge; (2) the adverse action, to include the administrative discharge, was unfair at the time; and (3) is inequitable now. The applicant through counsel, states that “While at a party with military members and spouses, [the applicant] got into a physical altercation with one of the wives. [The wife] then made a false claim of sexual assault against [the applicant] and someone else at the party. [The applicant] later received an Article 15 for the allegation but maintain [the applicant’s] innocence.” There is a procedural defect in this case. In this case, there was a hasty command initiated request for separation. The applicant was under investigation for serious misconduct, but the command did not wait to find out the final disposition of the investigation. During a command initiated discharge request, consideration should be given to the Soldier’s potential for rehabilitation, and entire record should be reviewed before taking action. The commander must provide the member reasonable time to overcome deficiencies. In this case there was a rush to judgment that there was a problem that could not be fixed. The command should have evaluated the applicant as to whether the applicant had a long-term problem or whether there was an immediate fix. The applicant deserved to be rehabilitated by the command for the false accusations endured during time in the military. Although the applicant was separated from service with a general discharge for serious misconduct under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, this does not necessarily mean that the applicant is guilty of any wrongdoings. There is an inherent risk of wrongful conviction when the accuser is simply able to make an accusation and have it accepted without any additional evidence or investigation. Although the command was authorized to administratively separate the applicant, the fundamental reason for the discharge was substantially deficient. There was no fully determined reason to initiate the discharge. The instruction also allows for the service-member to be able to “fix” the problem. The applicant was not allowed these opportunities. The service-member was never offered or provided with rehabilitation and the results of the investigation were never reviewed prior to the discharge. The command in this case did not have the proper authority to administratively separate the applicant. b. Board Type and Decision: In a telephonic personal appearance conducted on 14 August 2023, and by a 3-2 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 7 July 2022 c. Separation Facts: The applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) is void of the case separation file. However, the applicant provided documents which are described below in 3c(1) through (6). (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 4 March 2022 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 22 January 2021, the applicant kissed and touched the breast of C__ without consent. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 24 August 2021 and 9 March 2022 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 22 April 2022 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 February 2020 / 3 years, 18 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 27 / Bachelor’s Degree / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 13B10, Cannon Crewmember / 2 years, 4 months, 20 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, 5 November 2021, for being drunk and disorderly which conduct was of a nature to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces on or about 24 January 2021. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2 (suspended); forfeiture of $700.00 pay (suspended); and extra duty and restriction for 30 days. Developmental Counseling Form, 11 July 2021, reflects the applicant was counseled for initiation of an involuntary separation/field initiated (BA) flag. DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)), 16 July 2021, reflects the applicant was flagged for involuntary separation/field initiated (BA), effective 12 July 2021. Report of Mental Status Evaluation (MSE), 20 July 2021, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings; could appreciate the difference between right and wrong; and met medical retention requirements. The applicant had been screened for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) with negative results. The conditions were either not present or did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. The command was advised to consider the influence of these conditions. Law Enforcement Report - Initial - Final, 22 June 2022, reflects an investigation established the applicant committed the offense of abusive sexual contact. (Name masked) reported to the Clarksville Police Department that they attended a social gathering at an off-post residence, where the applicant made sexually suggestive comments to them and subsequently touched them in a sexual manner without consent. The applicant revoked rights and requested a lawyer. The applicant later provided a verbal statement, through an attorney, admitting touching (name masked) buttocks; however, claimed (name masked) solicited the physical contact. Criminal Investigation Division (CID) interviewed Private First Class (name masked) who disclosed that they attended the same off-post social gathering and was also inappropriately touched by the applicant against their will and without consent. Sergeant First Class (name masked) disclosed while at the same social gathering the applicant touched them inappropriately without consent, however, declined to cooperate. A DA Form 4833 (Commander Report of Disciplinary or Administrative Action) reflects the applicant was referred on 6 July 2021 for abusive sexual contact on 22 January 2021. Applicant received an administrative separation under AR 635-200, chapter 14c, with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: Blanchfield Army Community Hospital office and clinical notes, 1 August 2023, reflecting the applicant has anxiety and was prescribed Zoloft. (2) AMHRR Listed: MSE as described in previous paragraph 4h. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Legal Brief; separation packet; military documents; Blanchfield Army Community Hospital office and clinical notes. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 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), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember’s date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. (5) Paragraph 14-3 prescribes a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. (6) Paragraph 14-12c prescribes 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. 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: 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. 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, through counsel, an upgrade to honorable, and changes to the SPD code, RE code to 1, and characterization of discharge (narrative reason) to “Secretarial Authority,” and removal of derogatory information. The applicant’s AMHRR, the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By the misconduct (serious offense), the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. The applicant through counsel contends, in effect, the characterization of discharge (narrative reason) should be changed to “Secretarial Authority.” The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Misconduct (Serious Offense),” and the separation code is “JKQ.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635- 5-1, SPD Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant through counsel contends, in effect, the SPD code should be changed. Separation codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DoD and the Military Services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. The SPD Codes are controlled by OSD and then implemented in Army policy AR 635-5-1 to track types of separations the SPD code specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, is “JKQ.” The applicant through counsel, requests a RE code change to 1. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 601-201, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of “3.” An RE Code of “3” indicates the applicant requires a waiver before being allowed to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the Army’s needs at the time and are required to process waivers of RE codes if appropriate. The applicant through counsel contends, in effect, the discharge is inequitable and has served its purpose. The underlying basis of the applicant’s separation was procedurally defective at the time of the discharge. Analyst notes the CID provided a law enforcement report, 22 June 2022, that reflects the applicant was investigated due to an offense of abusive sexual contact. Three separate individuals were interviewed and disclosed that they were inappropriately touched by the applicant at an off-post social gathering they attended. The applicant provided a verbal statement, through an attorney, admitting touching (name masked) buttocks; however, claimed (name masked) solicited the physical contact. The trial counsel opined probable cause existed to believe the applicant committed the offense of abusive sexual contact and stated no additional investigative efforts were required and there was sufficient evidence to provide to the command for consideration of action. The applicant through counsel contends, in effect, the adverse action, to include the administrative discharge, was unfair at the time. The applicant’s counsel provided a Clarksville Police Department incident report, that shows the applicant was charged with an of offense of fondling with use of alcohol. It should be noted the CID law enforcement report, 22 June 2022, reflects the applicant provided a verbal statement, through an attorney, admitting touching (name masked) buttocks; however, claimed (name masked) solicited the physical contact. The trial counsel opined probable cause existed to believe the applicant committed the offense of abusive sexual contact. Manual for Courts-Martial, states nonjudicial punishment is ordinarily appropriate when administrative corrective measures are inadequate due to the nature of the minor offense or the record of the Servicemember. AR 635-200, chapter 14 states action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. The applicant through counsel contends, in effect, “While at a party with military members and spouses, [the applicant] got into a physical altercation with one of the wives. [The wife] then made a false claim of sexual assault against [the applicant] and someone else at the party. [The applicant] later received an Article 15 for the allegation but maintain my innocence.” It should be noted the Article 15 provided by counsel reflects misconduct pertaining to inappropriately touching PFC D__ J. S__, however this portion of the misconduct was removed. The applicant received the Article 15 for being drunk and disorderly on or about 22 January 2021. The applicant through counsel contends, in effect, the case was a hasty command initiated request for separation. The applicant was under investigation for serious misconduct, but the command did not wait to find out the final disposition of the investigation. It should be noted the CID provided a law enforcement report, 22 June 2022, that reflects the applicant was investigated due to an offense of abusive sexual contact. The trial counsel opined probable cause existed to believe the applicant committed the offense of abusive sexual contact and stated no additional investigative efforts were required and there was sufficient evidence to provide to the command for consideration of action. A DA Form 4833 (Commander Report of Disciplinary or Administrative Action) reflects the applicant was not referred until 6 July 2021 for abusive sexual contact that occurred on 22 January 2021 and received an administrative separation under AR 635-200, chapter 14c, with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. The applicant through counsel contends, in effect, during a command initiated discharge request, consideration should be given to the Soldier’s potential for rehabilitation, and entire record should be reviewed before taking action. In this case there was a rush to judgment that there was a problem that could not be fixed. Counsel provided the separation authority memorandum, 22 April 2022, that reflects the separation authority determined the rehabilitative transfer requirement in accordance with AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16, did not apply to this separation action. AR 635-200, paragraph 1-17d(2), states the separation authority may waive the rehabilitative transfer requirements in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate such a transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant through counsel contends, in effect, although the command was authorized to administratively separate the applicant, the fundamental reason for the discharge was substantially deficient. There was no fully determined reason to initiate the discharge. The command in this case did not have the proper authority to administratively separate the applicant. The commander determined that on 22 January 2021, the applicant kissed and touched the breast of C__ without consent. AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(3) states any Soldier convicted, as defined by paragraph 14-2h, of a sex offense, as defined by paragraph 14-2g and that did not result in a punitive discharge will be processed for administrative separation regardless of when the conviction for the sex offense occurred. Paragraph 14-2g states a “sex offense” as it pertains to chapter 14 is defined as: (1) Offenses involving rape, a sexual act, or sexual contact, as defined by the jurisdiction where the conviction occurred; (2) Offenses listed in 34 USC 20911, 18 USC 1591, 18 USC Chapter 109A, 18 USC 117, and DoDI 1325.07; (3) State or local offenses that contain elements substantially similar to those listed in paragraph 14-12c(3); (4) Attempts and conspiracies to commit one of the offenses listed in paragraph 14- 12c(3). Paragraph 14-2h states a “conviction” for purposes of this chapter includes: (1) A plea or finding of guilty; (2) A plea of nolo contendere; (3) All other actions by a court tantamount to a finding of guilty; (4) A finding of guilty at a general or special court-martial. The applicant, through counsel, requests removal of this derogatory information from the applicant’s AMHRR. The applicant’s request does not fall within this board’s purview. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. The Army Review Board Agency provided the law enforcement report, 22 June 2022, to the applicant and counsel at the email addresses provided in the application and legal brief on 2 August 2023 requesting comments. Counsel responded on 8 August 2023, stating the CID conducted an incomplete investigation into the matter. The applicant will address the human aspect of the applicant’s case during the upcoming telephonic hearing. Throughout both the State Court proceedings and the Article 15 hearings, the applicant, consistently and vehemently, disputed the allegations presented in this case. It is crucial, however, to highlight that upon thorough examination, it is evident that this report, which they are currently scrutinizing, is regrettably marred by inaccuracies that need to be addressed. The applicant, while acknowledging an error in judgment by associating with a noncommissioned officer at their home, firmly denies ever forming the intent to commit a crime or engaging in any inappropriate physical contact with anyone. The applicant maintains complete innocence and emphasizes the applicant’s commitment to upholding the values of professionalism and integrity. The applicant checked the other mental health box on the DD Form 293. The Army Review Board Agency representative emailed the applicant and counsel at the email addresses provided in the application and legal brief on 11 July and 1 August 2023 requesting documentation to support a mental health condition. On 1 August 2023, the applicant provided Blanchfield Army Community Hospital office and clinical notes, 1 August 2023, reflecting the applicant has anxiety and was prescribed Zoloft. The AMHRR shows the applicant underwent a MSE on 20 July 2021 which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and recognized right from wrong. The MSE does not indicate any diagnosis. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 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): N/A. b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): N/A. c. Counsel / Witness(es) / Observer(s): Applicant and counsel provided oral arguments in support of the contentions they provided in their written submissions and in support of their documentary evidence 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 diagnosis: The applicant is diagnosed with Anxiety Disorder secondary to an event during her after service employment. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? No. The only diagnosis documented was post-service and related to an event during her after service employment; there is no connection to service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? N/A (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the characterization of discharge (narrative reason) should be changed to “Secretarial Authority.” The Board considered this contention but determined the unmitigated basis for separation does not warrant a change to Secretarial Authority as the applicant was involuntarily separated for misconduct. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is not warranted. (2) The applicant through counsel contends the discharge is inequitable and has served its purpose. The Board considered this contention but found insufficient evidence of mitigating factors to outweigh the applicant’s sexual assault offense. (3) The applicant contends “While at a party with military members and spouses, [the applicant] got into a physical altercation with one of the wives. [The wife] then made a false claim of sexual assault against [the applicant] and someone else at the party. The Board considered this contention during proceedings but found insufficient evidence to show that the assault did not occur. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is not warranted. (4) The applicant through counsel contends the case was a hasty command-initiated request for separation. The Board considered this contention but found insufficient evidence in the applicant’s AMHRR, applicant-provided evidence, or applicant testimony to show that the Command acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. (5) The applicant through counsel contends, in effect, although the command was authorized to administratively separate the applicant, the fundamental reason for the discharge was substantially deficient. The Board considered this contention and determined that evidenced showed that the applicant’s Commission of a Serious Offense discharge was proper and equitable. (6) The applicant requests removal of derogatory information from the applicant’s AMHRR. The applicant’s request does not fall within this board’s purview. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of 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 post- service Anxiety Disorder did not provide medical mitigation to the applicant’s sexual assault offense. The Board also considered the applicant's contentions regarding false accusations and improprieties in the separation process and found that the totality of the applicant's record does not warrant a discharge upgrade. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. Therefore, the applicant’s General discharge was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to Honorable discharge. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, and 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. ? 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 AR20230002318 1