1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 14 May 2016 b. Date Received: 18 May 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in over 175 months of service with no other adverse action. His military record and accomplishments show a career served with distinction and honor and the values that warrant an honorable discharge. When he received a FG Article 15 and subsequently discharged, he had to repay a $32,200 bonus. The Article 15 and the discharge were sufficient enough punishment for his offense. An upgrade would allow him to look at his career with pride and find a decent employment. He never denied his actions in the wrong doing but they were not done for personal gain—the situation was blown out of proportion as he acted with the mission and his teammates at the forefront of his mind. He took a receipt book off of a Jordanian business man’s desk, but returned it as soon as he realized it was missed. There were implications because he was the Field Ordering Officer for the fund. He and a paying agent found a way to pay for propane using the fund. Propane was an authorized purchase. The rules of the fund did not allow use of the funds by the book on several purchases so it forced them to write on blank receipts and sometimes fabricate receipts for purchases. There was never a time that money was handled or taken by him. It was all used for the purchase of fuel and propane. The propane was a necessity as they were housed in a building that had no heat with temperature below 10 degrees and no way to cook food. An Article 15-6 investigation found him guilty of larceny, fraud, and conspiracy. He accepted the charges because they were true regardless of his intent. The paying agent received a CG Article 15 and he received a field grade. An example was made of him and it is unfair because of how he was taught to use such funds on deployments. Commands in previous deployments supported, and at times encouraged greater indiscretions in the use of such funds. He knows his actions warranted punishment. He exercised extremely poor judgment. There is not a single day that he does not regret his decisions. However, an upgrade would show he served honorably and embodied the Ranger and NCO creed until the day of his discharge. The day he took off his uniform for the last time was the hardest day of his life. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 7 November 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: 29 March 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 13 October 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant conspired to falsify fuel receipts in November 2014, and he conspired and stole a receipt book from a business in Al Zarqa, Jordan in January 2015. (3) Recommended Characterization: The unit commander recommended General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, and subsequent to the battalion and group commanders’ recommendations for UOTHC discharge, recommended approving the conditional waiver request with a General, Under Honorable Conditions discharge. (4) Legal Consultation Date: 15 October 2015 and 5 January 2016 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Conditionally waived on 5 January 2016 (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 3 March 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 19 November 2012 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 118 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-7 / 18C40, Special Forces Engineer Sergeant, and 11B30, Infantryman / 14 years, 7 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA (30 August 2001 to 4 November 2004) / HD RA (5 November 2004 to 1 March 2009) / HD RA (2 March 2009 to 18 November 2012) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii, SWA / Iraq (11 January 2004 to 10 February 2005), (22 January 2010 to 15 July 2009?Analyst check this date?), Afghanistan (11 July 2010 to 16 February 2011), (15 January 2012 to 15 May 2012) / Lebanon (18 October 2013 to 20 December 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: BSM; ARCOM-3; AAM; AGCM-4; NDSM; ACM-2CS; ICM-2CS; GWOTEM-2; GWOTSM; NCOPDR-3; ASR; OSR-2; NATOMDL-2; JMUA; MUC-2; VUA-2; CIB g. Performance Ratings: Four NCOERs rendered during period under current review: 1 January 2012 thru 31 December 2012, Among the Best 31 December 2012 thru 30 December 2013, Among the Best 30 December 2013 thru 29 December 2014, Among the Best 30 December 2014 thru 1 April 2015, Marginal, RFC h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Memorandum, dated 28 January 2015, with a report of proceedings by the investigating officer (IO) and its associated documents, shows the result of an Article 15-6 investigation that included the IO’s summary of facts and circumstances surrounding the theft of a receipt book from a business in Jordan on 12 January 2015, and a detailed findings and recommendations involving the applicant and another NCO, SSG C. FG Article 15, dated 14 April 2015, for falsifying fuel receipts in November 2014, and conspire and commit larceny of a receipt book on 12 January 2015. The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $1,976 (suspended) and 45 days of extra duty and restriction (suspended). Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 9 June 2015, indicates the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: DD Form 2807-1 (Report of Medical History), dated 20 April 2015, shows the applicant noted behavioral health issues and further noted by the examiner. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 14 May 2016; six recommendations, and character reference and supporting statements; Enlisted Records Brief (ERB); and DD Form 214, and as additional evidence, the applicant’s self-authored statement. 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 14-12c 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. 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. 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 his discharge was unjust because the basis was an isolated incident. 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. Further, his 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. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incidents of misconduct, the Board can find that his complete period of service and accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. The applicant claims the Veterans Administration has granted him 100 percent service connection for medical conditions the applicant suffered while on active duty. However, no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Further, the record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service with either medical limitation or medication. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it would be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the complete medical diagnosis relating to his VA disability rating), for the Board’s consideration because they are not available in the official record or with the applicant’s evidence. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant’s performance and character. 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. 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 November 2016, 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: 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: N/A 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 AR20160009560 6