1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 12 April 2016 b. Date Received: 18 April 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he would like an upgrade for the purpose of being able to utilize various VA education programs that are currently unavailable to him. He contends that he served on Active Duty for over five years and, with the exception of his last four months, his service was entirely honorable. As noted in his evaluation report dated 20 October 2010, he was rated as exceeding or meeting expectations in all areas according to his senior rater's comments, promote with peers and send to advanced leaders course. His potential was unlimited, an outstanding leader, coach and mentor. Additionally, he reenlisted twice (3 May 2007 and 12 May 2008), both of which he received recommendations from his commanding officers as fully qualified for requested action. He understands that his actions at the time of discharge reflect poorly on him and was not in keeping with the standards of the Army. He contends that he left his appointed place of duty in order to see his wife who he had been separated from; upon his arrival he discovered that his step son was very sick with multiple maladies, his spouse was sick, and her grandmother passed away within 48 hours of his arrival. He contacted his chain of command and requested additional leave to address the issues and care for his family. This leave was denied and he was told that he needed to return immediately. He made the decision to remain with his family and correct the situation. On 27 April 2011, he returned and turned himself into the El Paso police, who in turn transferred him to the Fort Bliss Provost Marshall. Within 60 days, he was discharged from the Army. He contends that at the time he felt he was making the best decision for his family. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 31 May 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 16 June 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 12 May 2008 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 27 / GED / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 19K10, M1 armor Crewman / 5 years, 2 months, 7 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 19 January 2006 to 2 May 2007 / HD RA, 3 May 2007 to 11 May 2008 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Iraq (3 July 2007 to 22 December 2007 and 1 November 2008 to 5 June 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, AAM-5, MUC, AGCM, NDSM, ICM-2CS, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: 1 December 2009 thru 20 October 2010, Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 84 days 15 days (NIF, 24 January to 7 February 2011) 45 days (NIF, 13 March to 26 April 2011) 24 days (NIF, 17 May to 9 June 2011) (Note: The record is void of the documents that indicate the reason for the periods of time lost.) j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; NCO Evaluation Report, dated 20 October 2010; reenlistment DD Form's 4 dated 3 May 2007 and 12 May 2008; and letters of recommendation from former members of his chain of command. 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 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant's available record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. Barring evidence to the contrary, the presumption of government regularity prevails as all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The applicant seeks relief contending he served on Active duty for over five years and with the exception of his last four months, his service was entirely honorable. He was rated as exceeding or meeting expectations; he reenlisted twice, both of which he received recommendations from his commanding officers as fully qualified for requested action. He understands that his actions at the time of discharge reflect poorly on him and was not in keeping with the standards of the Army. However, he made the decision to remain with his family and correct the situation. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, it is unknown if these contentions have merit because the facts and circumstances leading to the discharge are not contained in the service record. The burden of proof remains with the former Soldier to provide the appropriate documents such as the discharge packet or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. The applicant expressed his desire for an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to utilize the various VA education programs currently unavailable to him. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. 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 31 May 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 Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change f. 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 AR20160008444 4