1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 2 February 2016 b. Date Received: 9 February 2016 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 of his narrative reason for discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge was both inequitable and improper because it was based on a single isolated incident in his entire military service with no other adverse action; that this single isolated incident occurred as a result of arbitrary, capricious, discrimination and abuse of authority action taken against him by his chain of command and not through any fault of his; and that he was oppressed and persecuted out of the unit solely because he was a Black American Soldier of African origin who qualified to upgrade himself into becoming a commissioned officer in the United States Army, but his then all white chain of command hated to see that happen. He also contends that the so-called absence without authorization incident was completely out of his overall nature and character as an outstanding, well disciplined, hardworking, and highly professional stellar Soldier of the United States Army. He has a bachelor’s degree from an accredited university and was 31 years old at the time of the incident with a family to take care of. He served with utmost military bearings and with excellence in his MOS, constantly volunteering outside of his MOS helping other Soldier’s complete tasks to help achieve overall organizational goals with no incident and no other adverse action until his sudden, unjust discharge. He believes he was not afforded the proper time to clear his installation prior to his separation which has continued to cause a hardship on him. Per the Board’s Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant had no mitigating medical or behavioral health condition for the offenses. The Active Duty electronic medical record was reviewed and revealed a diagnosis of Depression; however, the behavioral health condition was not a mitigating factor for misconduct that led to the separation action of the applicant from the Army. Mental status exams, dated 12 March 2011 and 19 October 2011, indicated “No Mental Health Problems” and the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for administrative action. He denied current mental health symptoms, but attributed AWOL to experiencing extreme distress due to discrimination by his Command. He reported being depressed and not being fully aware of his choices. Screened negative for PTSD and TBI. In a personal appearance board conducted at Arlington, VA on 17 October 2016, 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 12 March 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 20 January 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant went AWOL (20 April 2010 to 9 February 2011). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 30 January 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 14 February 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 12 February 2009 / 3 years and 23 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 30 / 16 years / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist / 2 years, 3 months, 11 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 1 November 2011, for going AWOL (20 April 2010 until his return on 9 February 2011). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $733.00 pay per month for two months, 45 days extra duty, and 45 days restriction (suspended). Mental Status Evaluation, which reflects the applicant was command referred for psychiatric evaluation. It was noted by the applicant that at the time he went AWOL he was experiencing extreme distress associated with what he believed was discrimination by his command. He stated that he became depressed and does not feel that he was fully aware of the choices he was making. At the time of the assessment, the applicant stated that all his symptoms had resolved and describes himself as calm and accepting of the situation. The applicant completed scales for PTSD and TBI, he did not indicate that he was experiencing any symptoms of PTSD or TBI. The applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriated by his command. Several developmental counseling statements, for demonstrating initiative, adapting to changes with no problem, always in the proper uniform, no longer was pending separation action, communicating effectively with his fellow Soldier, and for going AWOL. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 295 days (AWOL, 20 April 2010 – 9 February 2011) / NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Document submitted by the applicant show the applicant suffered with adjustment disorder with anxiety, major depression, recurrent 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; resume; self-authored statement; exhibits A1 – N2; Green to Gold Application; military medical record; counseling statements attesting to good character; army Equal Opportunity Memoranda in accordance with AR 600-20; coercively edited memorandum; evidence of false, misleading and improper caption on discharge paperwork; evidence of no criminal record/clean state and federal background check report; several recommendations/character references; and achievements/awards received. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, in effect, that since his discharge he has accomplished the following: Master of Public Administration degree awardee with concentration in Public Policy & Management (18 December 2015), Graduate Certificate in Project Management (18 December 2015), Outstanding Graduate Student Award (8 May 2015), Master of Public Administration Program Liaison Officer & Ambassador Award (8 May 2015), The Graduate School Excellent Service Award (15 May 2015), National Honor Society of Leadership and Success inductee and Presidential Award (5 December 2014), The PhD Project Conference Selectee/Sponsored Participant, O'Hare Chicago (19 - 21 November 2014), University of Ghana Business Development and Sustainability Conference Sponsored Participant, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana Africa (29 – 31 July 2014), University of Baltimore School of Law LSAT Scholarship Program - Selected Recipient (12 December 2014 for Fall 2016 Law School Enrollment, and Graduate Assistantship Excellence Award (18 December 2015). 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, 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 of his narrative reason for discharge. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms 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 appropriate SPD code and narrative reason to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged for misconduct (serious offense) is “JKQ” and the RE code is 3. The regulation further stipulates no deviation is authorized. 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, his discharge was both inequitable and improper because it was based on a single isolated incident during his entire military service with no other adverse action. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry 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. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant contends that his single isolated incident occurred as a result of arbitrary, capricious, discrimination and abuse of authority action taken against him by his chain of command and not through any fault of his; and that he was oppressed and persecuted out of the unit solely because he was a black American Soldier of African origin who qualified to upgrade himself into becoming a commissioned officer in the United States Army, but his then all white chain of command hated to see that happen. 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 this issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discriminated. In fact, the applicant’s incident of misconduct (going AWOL for 395 days) justified his being discharge. The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. Also, the applicant 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 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. Furthermore, by regulation, a UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of misconduct (serious offense). It appears the applicant’s generally good record of service was the basis for his receiving a GD instead of the normal UOTHC discharge. 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. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted no additional documents or contentions. b. Witness(es) / Observer(s): None 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance board conducted at Arlington, VA on 17 October 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: No Change 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: NA AUTHENTICATING OFFICIAL: COL, US ARMY Presiding Officer Army Discharge Review Board 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 AR20160004053 6