1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 19 November 2022 b. Date Received: 5 December 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 change to the narrative reason. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, on 19 May 2020, while living off post, the police were called, and the applicant was accused of domestic violence. The domestic disagreement was twisted and misconstrued in a manner which reflected a more serious incident than what had occurred, which was an argument. Charges were dismissed on all levels except for a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) from the military, even after submitting all evidence of innocence, including charges dismissed by civilian authorities. The applicant served the country with pride and gained the trust of the superiors and subordinates. Before, during, and after the investigation, the applicant retained the faith and trust of all superiors and subordinates. The applicant believes the applicant was made an example because of a string of suicides, homicides, fatal accidents, and criminal behavior occurring at Fort Hood at the time. The applicant truly believes the applicant is not deserving of a of general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The applicant served as a model officer for the unit and the country, continuing the family’s commitment to the great nation. b. Board Type and Decision: In a telephonic personal appearance hearing conducted 21 August 2023, and by a 5-0 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: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, NA / JNC / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 28 January 2022 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 11 December 2020 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b for misconduct, moral, or professional dereliction, or in the interests of national security, and paragraph 4-2c for derogatory information, because of the following reasons: The applicant assaulted M., with whom the applicant was in a dating relationship, by kicking M. on the left leg while trying to push M. out of the way and kicking M. on the lower back. Substantiated derogatory activity resulting and in General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 17 September 2020, which was filed in the applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). (3) Legal Consultation Date: 20 May 2021 (4) Board of Inquiry (BOI): NA (5) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 20 May 2021, the GOSCA recommended disapproval of the applicant’s request for retention and recommended the applicant be involuntarily eliminated from service. / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (6) DA Board of Review for Eliminations: On 30 November 2021, the Army Ad Hoc Review Board considered the GOSCA’s request to involuntary separate the applicant for unacceptable conduct and derogatory information in accordance with AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2b and 4-2c. (7) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 30 November 2021 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 8 January 2018 / NIF b. Age at Appointment: / Education: 22 / Bachelor’s Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-2 / 13A Field Artillery, General / 4 years, 1 month, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 15 December 2017 – 7 January 2017 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: 8 January 2018 – 13 January 2020 / Highly Qualified 14 January 2020 – 15 June 2020 / Qualified 16 June 2020 – 26 May 2021 / Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Temple Police Department Incident Sheet, dated 18 May 2020, reflects on 17 May 2020, police officers were dispatched for an assault family violence call. The victim A. M. stated the boyfriend, the applicant, kicked A. M. multiple times causing pain. While on the phone with the dispatcher, the applicant was mocking A. M. about the injuries and pain. The incident started when A. M. hid the applicant’s phone under the pillow and the applicant became angry. The victim, A. M. refused to provide a voluntary statement or press charges but allowed the officer to take pictures. The State of Texas Warrant of Arrest, dated 18 May 2020, reflects a warrant was issued against the applicant for the offense of Assault with Bodily Injury-Family / Household Member (A). , Texas, Affidavit of Prosecution, date 30 June 2020, reflects A. M., the complaining witness, did not desire to pursue charges against the applicant and desired for the prosecution of the case to be withdrawn, dismissed, and terminated. Memorandum, subject: Family Advocacy Incident Determination Committee (IDC) Incident Determination, dated 16 July 2020, reflects the committee which included the Commander, Installation Management Command, and Chief, Family Advocacy Program, Fort Hood, determined the applicant’s case of Adult Physical Abuse, risk was low and did not meet the criteria. It was recommended the applicant attend Stress Anger and Conflict Management Workshop and Conflict Resolution Group. The applicant was provided the opportunity to request reconsideration. The applicant and the immediate commander concurred with the treatment plan. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 17 September 2020, reflects on 17 May 2020, the applicant assaulted M. with whom the applicant was in a dating relationship, by kicking M. on the left leg while trying to push M. out of the way and kicking M. on the lower back. The police officers observed red marks in the shape of a shoe on M.’s leg and back. The applicant submitted a rebuttal statement. Motion to Dismiss Family Violence Related Case, dated 17 December 2020, reflects the County Attorney filed a motion for the court to dismiss the Assault Causes Bodily Injury Family Member a Class A misdemeanor, against the applicant. Although the elements of the offense were present and the State was ready to proceed to trial, the motion was made pursuant to a plea agreement with the applicant because the complaining witness requested the applicant not be prosecuted for the offense. The applicant completed the appropriate counseling as agreed in return for dismissal of the case. Memorandum for Record, dated 6 January 2021, reflects the immediate commander recommended the applicant be retained in the Army. Memorandum for Record, dated 22 February 2021, reflects the immediate commander initially submitted a character statement on 25 September 2020, and a letter of support dated 6 January 2021, speaking to the applicant’s character, recommending the applicant be considered for retention in the Army. After additional consideration and reflection on the incident, the commander determined separation from service was in the best interest of the Army and recommended the applicant receive a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 11 March 2021, reflects the applicant did not have a traumatic brain injury, concussion, or behavioral health condition which caused the applicant to fail medical retention standards in accordance with AR 40-501. The provider commented in the Behavioral Diagnoses section: See EMR. Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 19 April 2021, reflects the applicant’s problems listed as: Adult physical abuse, confirmed, and problem related to unspecified psychosocial circumstances. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; three Officer Evaluation Reports; three character references; and Motion to Dismiss Family Violence Related Case. 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 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. (1) Paragraph 1-23, provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 1-23a, states an officer will normally receive an honorable characterization of service when the quality of the officer’s service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty, or the final revocation of a security clearance under DODI 5200.02 and AR 380-67 for reasons that do not involve acts of misconduct for an officer. (3) Paragraph 1-23b, states an officer will normally receive a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service when the officer’s military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A separation under general (under honorable conditions) normally appropriate when an officer: Submits an unqualified resignation; Separated based on misconduct; discharged for physical disability resulting from intentional misconduct or neglect; and, for final revocation of a security clearance. (4) Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty. (5) Paragraph 4-2b, prescribes for the elimination of an officer for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interests of national security. (6) Paragraph 4-2c, prescribes for elimination of an officer for derogatory information. The reasons require an officer’s record to be reviewed for consideration of terminating appointment. Standing alone, one of the conditions may or may not support elimination, however, the derogatory information combined with other known deficiencies form a patten that, when reviewed in conjunction with the officer’s overall record, requires elimination. (7) Paragraph 4-20a (previously 4-24a), states an officer identified for elimination may, at any time during or prior to the final action in the elimination case elect one of the following options: (1) Submit a resignation in lieu of elimination; (2) request a discharge in lieu of elimination; and (3) Apply for retirement in lieu of elimination if otherwise eligible. 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 “JNC” as the appropriate code to assign commissioned officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24 for unacceptable conduct. 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 honorable. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the domestic disagreement was misconstrued; the charges were dismissed by civilian authorities; and the applicant was used as an example. The applicant provided and the AMHRR contains a motion to dismiss the charges pursuant to a plea agreement with the applicant and because the complaining witness requested the applicant not be prosecuted for the offense. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The third party statements provided with the application, to include a statement from the complaining witness, speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant’s good military service and/or personal conduct. 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): Applicant provided oral argument and statements in support of the contentions provided in written submissions and in support of previously submitted documentary evidence b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): N/A. c. Counsel / Witness(es) / Observer(s): N/A. 10. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. , 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 the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant did not have a behavioral health condition or experience in- or post-service. Additionally, the applicant did not assert a behavioral health condition or experience. Applicant was the offender of Intimate Partner Violence. (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): (1) The applicant contends the domestic disagreement was misconstrued; the charges were dismissed by civilian authorities; and the applicant was used as an example. The Board considered this contention but determined the alternative disposition the applicant received in the criminal case does not mitigate or excuse the applicant’s assault offense. Therefore, a discharge upgrade is not warranted. (2) The applicant contends good service. The Board considered the applicant’s four years of service but determined that the applicant’s record does not outweigh the applicant’s assault offense. c. 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 was not found to hold an in-service behavioral health condition that would excuse the applicant’s assault offense. The Board also considered the totality of the applicant's service record and determined that it does not warrant 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, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. ? 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 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 I removed the paragraph number because the AR 635-5-1, no longer includes the paragraph, just the regulation and narrative reason. ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20230003106 1