1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 3 February 2023 b. Date Received: 13 February 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable along with a separation program designator (SPD) and reentry (RE) code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, The U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory command abused its power and had no authority to initiate an investigation pertaining to the applicant because the applicant had already completed a permanent change of station (PCS) move. The command appointed a senior colleague, who was in the applicant’s work section and had actual or perceived bias against the applicant, as the investigating officer. There was no evidence of sexual harassment other than hearsay, and other personnel interviewed were friends the applicant innocently complimented without any sexual insinuation, and they did not file any sexual harassment complaints, but were used by the investigating officer as corroborating evidence for sexual harassment. The sexual harassment investigation and findings and treatment afterwards were unfair. The GOMOR was issued by a Commanding General who was not in the applicant’s chain of command and the applicant was denied a personal appearance to resent matters in the applicant’s defense. The GOMOR went above and beyond the 15-6 investigation legal review recommendation. The applicant tendered a resignation letter in lieu of elimination because the applicant mental health had become very unstable. The applicant has been denied certain employment due to the current discharge characterization. No more incidents of unprofessional conduct have occurred since the applicant’s discharge. The applicant had honorable service and desires to served again. b. Board Type and Decision: In a telephonic personal appearance conducted on 18 September 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, Paragraph 4-2 and 4-24 / BNC / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 3 March 2021 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Initiation of Elimination: 31 January 2020 (provided by applicant) (2) Basis for Separation: On 17 January 2020, the applicant received a GOMOR for sexually harassing several coworkers and attempting to engage in a prohibited relationship. And conduct unbecoming an officer as indicated by the above-referenced GOMOR. (Provided by applicant) (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Board of Inquiry (BOI): The applicant submitted a resignation in lieu of elimination. (5) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: NIF (6) DASA Review Board Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 11 May 2017 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment / Education: 36 / Doctorate c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-3 / 71F 1B 8X, Research Psychology / 8 years,11 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 14 July 2014 - 7 March 2017 / HD ARNG, 8 March 2012 – 13 July 2014 / HD RA, 17 July 2012 – 12 December 2012 / HD (Concurrent Service) (IADT) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR g. Performance Ratings: 1 February 2020 – 8 June 2020 / Highly Qualified 1 September 2019 – 31 January 2020 / Not Qualified 1 June 2019 – 31 August 2019 / Highly Qualified 1 June 2018 – 31 May 2019 / Highly Qualified 11 June 2017 – 31 May 2018 / Highly Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: On 24 September 2019, An Article 15-6 Investigation found during the applicant’s tenure as the SHARP Representative from 26 September 2017 through 1 September 2019, the applicant sexually harassed females assigned to the U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory by attempting to engage a cadet in an inappropriate relationship and engaging in unwelcomed and workplace-inappropriate conduct. GOMOR, dated 17 January 2020, reflects the applicant was reprimanded for sexually harassing several coworkers and attempting to engage in a prohibited relationship, which was conduct unbecoming an officer. While assigned to the U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory, the applicant made inappropriate comments to multiple female coworkers, including commenting on their appearance, and repeatedly inviting them to engage in one-on-one interactions outside the workplace. The applicant also attempted to develop a prohibited relationship with a cadet by inviting her home and offering her alcohol. This conduct was in violation of Articles 92 and 133, Uniform Code of Military Justice. 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 149, DD Form 293, personal statement, DASEB Appeal Decision, OERs, Orders, Biographical Summary, ORB, DA Form 41787, AR 15-6 Findings and Recommendations, GOMOR with allied documents, Resignation In Lieu of Elimination, letters of support 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), 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 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interest of national security. A discharge of honorable, general, or under other than honorable conditions characterization of service may be granted. 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 “BNC” as the appropriate code to assign to officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b, 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 along with a separation program designator (SPD) code change. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant’s service AMHRR is void of the complete specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2 and paragraph 4-24, AR 600-8-24 with a genenral (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Unacceptable Conduct.” Army Regulation 635-5-1, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1. It identifies the SPD code of “BNC” as the appropriate code to assign to officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b, unacceptable conduct There is no provision for any other reason or SPD code to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends the U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory command abused its power and had no authority to initiate an investigation pertaining to the applicant because the applicant had already completed a permanent change of station (PCS) move. The applicant contends the command appointed a senior colleague who was in the applicant’s work section and had actual or perceived bias against the applicant as the investigating officer. The applicant contends there was no evidence of sexual harassment other than hearsay, and other personnel interviewed were friends the applicant innocently complimented without any sexual insinuation, and they did not file any sexual harassment complaints, but were used by the investigating officer as corroborating evidence for sexual harassment. The sexual harassment investigation and findings and treatment afterwards were unfair. The applicant contends the GOMOR was issued by a Commanding General who was not in the applicant’s chain of command and the applicant was denied a personal appearance to present matters in the applicant’s defense. The GOMOR went above and beyond the 15-6 investigation legal review recommendation. The applicant contends the applicant tendered a resignation letter in lieu of elimination because the applicant mental health had become very unstable. The applicant states the applicant has been denied certain employment due to the current discharge characterization. The Board does not grant relief to gain employment or enhance employment opportunities. The applicant states there have not been anymore incidents of unprofessional conduct since the discharge. 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 there was honorable service and desires to serve again. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant requested a RE code change to reenter service. Officer personnel are not issued RE codes. Officers are appointed and do not enlist. 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): No additional documents were submitted. b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): No additional contentions were submitted. Applicant provided oral argument and statements in support of the previously submitted documentary evidence. c. Counsel / Witness(es) / Observer(s): None 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 diagnoses: The applicant held a primary care diagnosis of Anxiety Disorder NOS secondary to the legal and discharge stressors. Post-service, he is service connected for Generalized Anxiety (GAD). (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. The applicant held a primary care diagnosis of Anxiety Disorder NOS secondary to the legal and discharge stressors. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that there is no nexus between anxiety and being sexually inappropriate to include attempting to engage in a prohibited relationship. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Based on liberally considering all the evidence before the Board, the ADRB determined that the condition or experience did not outweigh the basis of separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory command abused its power and had no authority to initiate an investigation pertaining to the applicant because the applicant had already completed a permanent change of station (PCS) move. The Board considered this contention and determined that separation for the applicant's misconduct for sexually harassing several coworkers and attempting to engage in a prohibited relationship was both proper and equitable. (2) The applicant contends the command appointed a senior colleague who was in the applicant’s work section and had actual or perceived bias against the applicant as the investigating officer. The Board considered this contention and determined that separation for the applicant's misconduct for sexually harassing several coworkers and attempting to engage in a prohibited relationship was both proper and equitable. (3) The applicant contends there was no evidence of sexual harassment other than hear-say, and other personnel interviewed were friends the applicant innocently complimented without any sexual insinuation, and they did not file any sexual harassment complaints, but were used by the investigating officer as corroborating evidence for sexual harassment. The sexual harassment investigation and findings and treatment afterwards were unfair. The Board considered this contention and determined that a substantiated Article 15-6 Investigation found during the applicant’s tenure as the SHARP Representative, for sexually harassing females assigned to the U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory, by attempting to engage a cadet in an inappropriate relationship, and engaging in unwelcomed and workplace-inappropriate conduct, supports the discharge as proper and equitable. (4) The applicant contends the GOMOR was issued by a Commanding General who was not in the applicant’s chain of command and the applicant was denied a personal appearance to present matters in the applicant’s defense. The GOMOR went above and beyond the 15-6 investigation legal review recommendation. The Board considered this contention, and determined the GOMOR, dated 17 January 2020, reflects the applicant was reprimanded for sexually harassing several coworkers and attempting to engage in a prohibited relationship, which was conduct unbecoming of an officer and supports the discharge was proper and equitable. (5) The applicant contends the applicant tendered a resignation letter in lieu of elimination because the applicant mental health had become very unstable. The Board considered this contention and determined there was insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors and concurred with the conclusion of the medical advising official that the applicant's GAD does not mitigate the applicant's misconduct for sexually harassing several coworkers and attempting to engage in a prohibited relationship. 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 Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors and concurred with the conclusion of the medical advising official that the applicant's GAD does not mitigate the applicant's misconduct for sexually harassing several coworkers and attempting to engage in a prohibited relationship, and conduct unbecoming an officer as indicated by the above-referenced GOMOR. 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. (3) The RE code is not applicable, as there are no RE codes applicable to commissioned officers. ? 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 AR20230004597 1