1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 22 February 2023 b. Date Received: 9 March 2023 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant admitted to BAH fraud and paid back all monies owed. The applicant requests post-service character be taken into consideration. The discharge is holding the applicant back from certain degrees and better paying jobs. b. Board Type and Decision: In a telephonic personal appearance conducted on 17 July 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length, quality of service, to include combat service, and post service accomplishment that mitigate the applicant's misconduct (false official documents, stealing military property, fraudulent claim). Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to General, Under Honorable Conditions. Please see Section 10 of this document for more detail regarding the Board's decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 10 October 2014 c. Separation Facts: Separation Documents previously submitted by applicant, NIF. (1) Date and Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): On 9 September 2014, the applicant was charged with: Charge I: Violating Article 107, UCMJ: Specification 1: On 2 July 2012, for with intent to deceive, sign an official record, to wit: DA Form 5960, Authorization to Start, Stop, or Change Basic Allowance for Quarters, which record was false in the applicant's spouse did not live in San Francisco, and which was known by the applicant to be so false. Specification 2 and 3: On 6 July 2012, for with intent to deceive, sign an official record, to wit: DD Form 1351-2, Travel Voucher or Sub voucher, which record was false because the applicant did not travel to San Francisco, and was then known by the applicant to be so false; to wit: DD Form 93, Record of Emergency Data, which record was false because the applicant's spouse did not live in San Francisco and which was known by the applicant to be so false. Specification 4: On 22 April 2013, for with intent to deceive, sign an official record, to wit: DD Form 93, Record of Emergency Data, which record was false in the applicant's spouse did not live in San Francisco, which was known by the applicant to be so false. Charge II: Violating Article 121, UCMJ, Specification: On 2 July 2012 and 9 April 2014, for stealing military property of value about $37,500, the property of the Army. Charge III: Violating Article 132, UCMJ, Specification: On 6 July 2012, for preparing a voucher for presentation for approval and payment, make a claim against the United States in the amount of $2,653.32 for a travel voucher for travel to San Francisco, which claim was fraudulent in the amount of $2,653.32, in the applicant had not traveled to San Francisco, and was then known by applicant to be false and fraudulent. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 10 September 2014 (3) 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. (4) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (5) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 30 September 2014 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 March 2014 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 27 / HS Graduate / 114 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 88M30, Motor Transport Operator / 11 years, 2 month, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 19 July 2003 - 1 March 2012 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, Korea, SWA / Iraq (8 January 2004 - 5 January 2005; 16 August 2006 - 21 September 2007) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-2CS, ARCOM-3, AAM-4, MUC, AGCM-3, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NCOPDR-2, ASR, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 13 April 2011 - 12 April 2012 / Fully Capable 13 April 2012 - 12 April 2013 / Fully Capable 13 April 2013 - 12 April 2014 / Marginal 14 April 2014 - 30 September 2014 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: See Charge Sheet as described in item 3c (1). The applicant's Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 13 October 2014, reflects the applicant was flagged for Adverse Action (AA) effective 25 June 2014; was ineligible for reenlistment due to Adverse Action Flag (L) (9B) The Assignment Eligibility Availability reflects the applicant was temporarily ineligible for reassignments due to medical, convalescence, confinement due to trial by court martial, enrollment in Track III ASAP, or local bar to reenlistment. The applicant was reduced to E-1 on 30 September 2014. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, Character Reference-3, personal letter-2, Certificate of Completion-6. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant provides several Certificates of Completion. 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) 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) Paragraph 3-7c states 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. (5) Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. (6) Paragraph 10-8a stipulates a discharge under other than honorable conditions normally are 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. (See Chap 3, Sec II) (7) Paragraph 10b stipulates 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. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant's Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant requests post-service character be taken into consideration and the applicant admitted to BAH fraud and paid back all monies owed. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. The applicant states the discharge is holding the applicant back from certain degrees and better paying jobs. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. 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): b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): c. Counsel / Witness(es) / Observer(s): 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? No. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed DoD and VA medical records and found While the applicant has been diagnosed with PTSD, Depression and mild TBI, none of these conditions mitigate the misconduct of BAH fraud, signing a false official statement or stealing $37500 of military property given that none of these conditions affect one's ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? N/A (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): The applicant contends the applicant admitted to BAH fraud and paid back all monies owed. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately did not address the contention due to an upgrade being. c. The Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and post service accomplishments outweighed the applicant's misconduct (false official documents, stealing military property, fraudulent claim). Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to General, Under Honorable Conditions. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to General, Under Honorable Conditions based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and post service accomplishment outweighed the applicant's misconduct (false official documents, stealing military property, fraudulent claim). Thus, the prior characterization is no longer appropriate. (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. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: Yes b. Change Characterization to: General, Under Honorable Conditions 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 AR20230002893 1