1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 25 October 2015 b. Date Received: 2 November 2015 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 change to the narrative reason for his separation. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, he served honorably for 3 years, 5 months, and 20 days in the military. He did not have any problems for the first three years and three months of service; he successfully completed all of his training, deployed to Afghanistan, and was awarded two AAMs, the AGCM, and a few coins. The applicant contends that he was only in trouble from July 2015 to August 2015, and a month later, he was separated for minor disciplinary problems. The applicant states that these were isolated incidents during his entire service—he was not given the time to correct himself or rehabilitate. The applicant contends that, due to the extra scrutiny from his command, he was stressed and was having sleep problems which he went to sick call for. Although he did well for a short time, he overslept again and that is when, the applicant alleges, his NCOs threatened to discharge him and imposed all kinds of special inspections. The applicant further contends that he was never counseled about the chapter, nor did trial defense explain anything to him. The applicant states that he was rushed through the process without ever being allowed to review his documents and he was ordered to sign his DD Form 214 by his escort NCO. The applicant further states that his overall service was honorable, his discharge narrative should be changed from "Misconduct (Serious Offense)" to "Pattern of Misconduct," and his violations were not serious in nature to merit the 14-12c, Serious Offense. The applicant wants to succeed and reenter the Army at a later time. Per the Board’s Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant has no mitigating behavioral health conditions for the offenses leading to his separation from the military. The military and VA electronic medical records were reviewed. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 7 December 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the characterization of service being both proper and equitable. However, based on the applicant’s length and quality of his service, to include his combat service and his prior period of honorable service, the Board determined the narrative reason for the applicant's separation is too harsh and inequitable. Therefore, the board directed the issue of a new DD Form 214 changing the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, the narrative reason for separation to Pattern of Misconduct, and the separation code to JKA. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 28 September 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 31 August 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was disrespectful toward NCOs (13 July 2015). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: Waived, 31 August 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 9 September 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 13 April 2015 / 2 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 94 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 12K10, Plumber / 3 years, 5 months, 20 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 9 April 2012 to 12 April 2015 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (28 January 2013 to 23 October 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, ACM-CS, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Summarized Article 15, dated 13 July 2015, for failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on numerous occasions (19 and 25 June 2015). (The continuation sheet is NIF). The punishment consisted of 5 days of extra duty. Negative counseling statements for being disrespectful towards an NCO; failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on numerous occasions; and dereliction of duty. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 26 August 2015, provided no diagnosis, but reported that the applicant was psychiatrically cleared from a behavioral health perspective for an administrative separation according to AR 635-200. FG Article 15, dated 31 August 2015, for failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on numerous occasions (23 and 30 July 2015, 3 and 5 August 2015), and being disrespectful in language towards an NCO on two separate occasions (13 July 2015). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3 (suspended), forfeiture of $1,027 pay per month for two months (suspended), and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 12 August 2015, shows that the applicant noted behavioral health issues. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; DD Form 214; self-authored statement; and enclosures listed on application. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general (under honorable conditions) or an honorable discharge may be granted. Paragraph 14-12c states 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. 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 14-12c, misconduct (serious offense). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 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 military service.” “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 change to the narrative reason for his separation. The applicant’s record of service, and 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 military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant contends he was not afforded the opportunity to rehabilitate. However, AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16d(2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements states, the rehabilitative requirements may be waived by the separation authority in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate that such transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. After reviewing the applicant’s discharge packet, the separation authority properly waived the rehabilitative requirements. Moreover, the evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishment. The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts. The applicant further contends that he was never counseled about the chapter, nor did trial defense explain anything to him. However, 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. In fact, the record reflects that on 31 August 2015, the applicant elected to waive his right to consult with legal counsel. The applicant requests to change the reason for his separation; however, the narrative reason for his separation is governed by specific directives. The narrative reason specified by AR 635-5-1 for a discharge under Chapter 14, Paragraph 14-12c is “Misconduct (Serious Offense),” and the separation code is JKQ. 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 applicant expressed a desire to rejoin the service. However, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3. There are no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or to the RE code. An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist. If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. The applicant contends the incidents that caused his discharge were isolated during his entire Army career. Although isolated incidents, the discrediting entries constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. Further, the applicant claims the offenses that caused his discharge were not serious to merit a discharge due to a serious offense. However, the service record indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant’s numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to any incidents of misconduct, the Board can find that his complete period of service was or was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. The applicant’s contentions were carefully considered. However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that he may have been unjustly discharged. The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further sufficient evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. Although the applicant did not raise any behavioral health issues, a careful review of his record revealed the applicant noted having behavioral health issues during his medical examination, but no direct diagnosis. If the Board determines the applicant's behavioral health issues were significant contributing factors to his misconduct, it can grant appropriate relief by changing the reason for separation and/or the characterization of service. 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 7 December 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the characterization of service being both proper and equitable. However, based on the applicant’s length and quality of his service, to include his combat service and his prior period of honorable service, the Board determined the narrative reason for the applicant's separation is too harsh and inequitable. Therefore, the board directed the issue of a new DD Form 214 changing the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, the narrative reason for separation to Pattern of Misconduct, and the separation code to JKA. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b e. Change SPD / RE Code to: Change SPD to JKA / No change to RE code f. Restore (Restoration of) Grade to: No Change AUTHENTICATING OFFICIAL: Microsoft Office Signature Line... Legend: 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