1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 7 December 2015 b. Date Received: 10 December 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his chain of command jumped to the conclusion to separate him, instead of working and developing him, and giving him the opportunity to improve. The applicant contends that the command gave up on him due to the draw-down. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 10 February 2017, 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 25 March 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 3 February 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: wrongfully made sexual comments toward Ms. S, the girlfriend of a deployed Soldier, by saying to her "You are going to get it so good when I come back from deployment," or words to that effect, while impersonating that Soldier, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ (7 February 2014); failed to report to duty at the Secured Compartmentalized Information Facility on two separate occasions; and, disobeyed a lawful order issued by SGT K. (17 May 2014). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 12 February 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 12 March 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 March 2012 / 3 years, 29 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 101 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 35F10, 2B Intelligence Analyst / 3 years, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (1 February 2014 to 13 August 2014) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ACM-CS, GWOTSM, ASR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 24 March 2014, for making sexual comments to the girlfriend of another Soldier (7 February 2014). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3. FG Article 15, dated 9 June 2014, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on two separate occasions (3 and 14 May 2014) and disobeying an NCO (17 May 2014). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $858 (suspended), and 30 days of extra duty. Negative counseling statements informing the applicant of the initiation of separation proceedings, failing to meet job requirements, lacking motivation and professionalism, and failing to follow directions, being insubordinate, and failing to obey an order or regulation. . Record of Supplementary Action under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 29 July 2014, indicates the suspended punishment of a forfeiture of $858 imposed on 9 June 2014 was vacated because the applicant failed to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 12 July 2014. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 15 October 2014, psychiatrically cleared the applicant for administrative separation under Chapter 14-12, as deemed appropriate by his command. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 7 December 2015; DD Form 214; and five supporting statements. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided 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 14-12b addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 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 "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, Pattern of Misconduct. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKA" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant's record of service, and the issues and document 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 or sufficient 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 his chain of command failed to work and develop him, and giving him the opportunity to improve. However, 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. Further, 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. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's character and performance. However, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. Although the applicant did not raise the issue that his DD Form 214 does not list all his decorations, medal, and badges, and because changes to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of this Board, the applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. 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 10 February 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 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 SPD / RE Code to: No Change e. Restore (Restoration of) Grade to: No Change AUTHENTICATING OFFICIAL: 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 ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20150019106 1