1. Applicant’s Name:
a. Application Date: 20 February 2018
b. Date Received: 22 February 2018
c. Counsel: None
2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his
general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a narrative reason change.
The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge was inequitable because it was
based on an error in judgment and not on the fact that he honorably served the country for
11 years. He states, like most Soldiers, he is not perfect. He has always led from the front and
inspired his Soldiers both on and off duty. He has successfully coached, mentored, and trained
Soldiers from Private to Major, while always maintaining his professional bearing and tact.
Despite his previous punishment, he continued to receive good evaluations and prior to his
punishment, he had received mostly “Promote Ahead of Peers.” He spent six years of his career
quietly suffering from PTSD. He believed, like most Soldiers, he would lose his clearance or be
pulled from a mission for seeking help at health.
He states, he tried his best to keep his symptoms under control, but in the end, he succumbed to
his demons. At the time of his judgment error, his lack of treatment and sleep, coupled with his
ten year old daughter’s sexual assault, was too much for him to bear and he made a mistake.
Since his discharge, he has received treatment from the Veteran Affairs Hospital and found a job
teaching. He mentions his accomplishments to demonstrate his character. He requests the
Board grant him relief to reflect his eleven years of honorable service to the country and not his
error in judgment.
Per the Board’s Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review
in the service record, AHLTA, and JLV, the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD. However, due
to the nature of the misconduct, PTSD is not a likely cause of misconduct. Therefore, a nexus
between PTSD and the misconduct is not likely.
In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 2 May 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board
denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable.
(Board member names available upon request)
3. DISCHARGE DETAILS:
a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24,
Chapter 4-2b and 4-24 / BNC / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions)
b. Date of Discharge: 16 October 2017
c. Separation Facts:
(1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 9 March 2017
(2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed to show cause for retention on
active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2b and c for acts of personal
misconduct, moral or professional dereliction and derogatory information in his Army Military Human
Resource Record, due to the following reasons:
Substantiated derogatory activity resulting in a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand,
dated 11 February 2016), which was filed in his Army Military Human Resource Record;
Substantiated derogatory activity resulting in a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand
dated 30 November 2016, which was filed in his Army Military Human Resource Record; and,
Conduct unbecoming an officer as indicated by the above-referenced GOMOR.
(3) Legal Consultation Date: 21 March 2017
(4) GCMCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 24 July 2017, the
GCMCA recommended disapproval of the applicant’s request for resignation in lieu of
elimination / General (Under Honorable Conditions)
(5) DA Ad Hoc Review Board: The AD Hoc review board considered the applicant’s
request for resignation in lieu of elimination in accordance with AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4.
(6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 2 October 2017 / General (Under
4. SERVICE DETAILS:
a. Date / Period of Appointment: 26 March 2008 / Indefinite
b. Age at Appointment / Education / GT Score: 28 / Bachelor’s Degree / NA
c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-3 / 37A, Psychological Operations
/ 12 years, 1 month, 7 days
d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 10 September 2005 – 21 September 2005 /
IADT, 22 September 2005 – 2 March 2006 / HD
USAR, 3 March 2006 – 21 March 2006 / HD
RA, 22 March 2006 – 26 March 2008 / HD
e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Bahrain, SWA / Afghanistan (2 April 2010 –
7 March 2011)
f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, BSM, JSCM, ARCOM, AAM-3, NATOMDL, MUC,
VUA, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, MOVSM, CIB
g. Performance Ratings: 19 March 2009 – 30 November 2010 / Best Qualified
18 February 2011 – 13 June 2011 / Best Qualified
14 June 2011 – 31 January 2014 / Best Qualified
1 February 2014 – 31 January 2016 / Highly Qualified
1 February 2016 – 27 September 2016 / Not Qualified
29 September 2016 – 3 January 2017 / Highly Qualified
4 January 2017 – 4 April 2017 / Highly Qualified
h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record:
Findings and Recommendations of 15-6 investigation of alleged fraternization (memo), dated
25 November 2015, reflects the investigating officer found that based on the preponderance of
the evidence, the applicant and SSG U, did fraternize and were in a prohibited relationship, in
violation of AR 600-20, paragraph 4-14(b) and (c), until they married on 12 November 2015.
The investigating officer recommended that disciplinary action for the applicant for fraternization
and for attempting to coerce a Soldier into providing false information to her chain of command.
General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 11 February 2011, for fraternization and for
maintaining an inappropriate relationship with a noncommissioned officer. Prior to his marriage to
the noncommissioned officer on 13 November 2015, he engaged in prohibited fraternization.
Further, he degraded his integrity when he pressured a noncommissioned officer to lie and deny
any knowledge of the relationship.
Commander’s Inquiry (memo), dated 24 September 2016, found that the applicant engaged in
an inappropriate relationship with a student, while he was assigned as a cadre member. The
applicant engaged in the relationship with the female student who was not his wife.
General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 30 November 2016, for engaging in an
inappropriate relationship with a student, while he was assigned as a cadre member. The
applicant engaged in the relationship with the female student who was not his wife.
Report of Proceedings by Board of Officers, dated 23 May 2017, reflects the board found:
The applicant engaged in an inappropriate relationship with CPT J C, resulting in a
GOMOR, which was filed in the applicant’s service record;
The applicant fraternized and maintained an inappropriate relationship with SSG U, resulting
in a GOMOR, which was filed in the applicant’s service record; and,
The applicant’s actions amounted to conduct unbecoming of an officer.
The Board recommended that the applicant be separated from service with a General
(Under Honorable Conditions).
i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None
j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Adult Preventative and Chronic Care
Flowsheet, dated 4 April 2017, reflects the applicant had received treatment for:
Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct
Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood
The applicant provided a copy of his VA disability decision from the eBenefits website, which
reflects the applicant was rated 30 percent disability for PTSD.
5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with all allied documents listed in block 8 of
6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, he has received treatment from
the Veteran Affairs Hospital and has gained employment.
7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): 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.
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 commissioned officers who are discharged under the provisions of
Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b, unacceptable conduct; and, 4-24a (1), resignation in
lieu of elimination.
Secretary of Defense Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments (Subject:
Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering
Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, dated
September 3, 2014), provided guidance to help ensure consistency across the military services
in consideration of PTSD relevant to Service Members’ discharges.
“Liberal consideration will be given in petitions for changes in characterization of service to
service treatment record entries which document one of more symptoms which meet the
diagnostic criteria of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or related conditions. Special
consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations which
document PTSD or PTSD-related conditions connected to military services. In cases where
Service Records or any document from the period of service substantiated the existence of one
or more symptoms of what is now recognized as PTSD or PTSD-related condition during the
time of service, liberal consideration will be given to finding that PTSD existed at the time of
service. Liberal consideration will also be given in cases where civilian providers confer
diagnoses of PTSD or PTSD-related conditions, when case records contain narratives that
support symptomatology at the time of service, or when any other evidence which may
reasonably indicate that PTSD or a PTSD-related disorder existed at the time of discharge
which might have mitigated the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable
conditions characterization of service. This guidance in not applicable to cases involving pre-
existing conditions which are determined not to have been incurred or aggravated while in
“Conditions documented in the 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
PTSD or PTSD related conditions 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 under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Correction
boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious
misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service other than honorable
conditions. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related
PTSD or PTSD-related conditions as a causative factor 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. Correction Boards will also exercise caution in weighing evidence of
mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of
symptoms to the misconduct.”
8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable
conditions) discharge to honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant’s record of
service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed.
The record confirms that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his
service was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and
performance of duty by Army officers. It brought discredit on the Army and was prejudicial to
good order and discipline.
The applicant provided no corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command’s
action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the unacceptable conduct or poor duty
performance, such that he should have been retained. Further, the applicant’s record contains
no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.
The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed because it
does not reflect his honorable service. However, the applicant was separated under the
provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b and 4-24a (1), AR 600-8-24 with a general (under
honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a
discharge under this paragraph is “Unacceptable Conduct,” and the separation code is “BNC.”
Army Regulation 635-5, 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,
Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no
deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this
regulation. Further, 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. The character of
the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall service record.
The applicant contends the VA has granted him a service connected disability for PTSD. He
contends his undiagnosed PTSD affected his behavior, which led to his discharge. However, a
careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the
reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The applicant’s service record is
void of a mental status evaluation. It appears the applicant’s chain of command determined that
he knew the difference between what was right and wrong.
The applicant contends that he was dealing with his daughter’s sexual assault, which affected
his behavior and ultimately caused him to be discharged. However, he had many legitimate
avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that
he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation
action under review.
The applicant contends that he had good service which included a combat tour. The applicant’s
service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the
initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended
for his accomplishments.
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.
9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 2 May 2018, and
by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and
10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED:
a. Issue a New DD-214 / Issue a New Separation Order: No
b. Change Characterization to: No Change
c. Change Reason to: No Change
d. Change Authority to: No Change
e. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change
AWOL – Absent Without Leave GD – General Discharge NCO – Noncommissioned Officer SCM – Summary Court Martial
BCD – Bad Conduct Discharge HS – High School NIF – Not in File SPCM – Special Court Martial
BH – Behavioral Health HD – Honorable Discharge NOS – Not Otherwise Specified SPD – Separation Program Designator
CG – Company Grade Article 15 IADT – Initial Active Duty Training OAD – Ordered to Active Duty TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury
CID – Criminal Investigation Division MP – Military Police OMPF – Official Military Personnel File UNC – Uncharacterized Discharge
ELS – Entry Level Status MST – Military Sexual Trauma PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UOTHC – Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
FG – Field Grade Article 15 NA – Not applicable RE – Reentry VA – Veterans Affairs
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE