1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 1 September 2016 b. Date Received: 11 July 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. A review of the applicant’s DD Form 214, reflects on 27 January 2006, the applicant was given a characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions). The applicant’s service record reflects that on 27 January 2006, the transition center that processed the applicant for separation requested that the Army Human Resources Command correct the applicant’s DD Form 214 to reflect a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. On 31 May 2006, the applicant’s DD Form 214 was corrected with a DD Form 215 reflecting the requested change. Based on this, the applicant’s request is construed to mean that he requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he served honorably and was never granted the opportunity to plead his case. He desires to appear before the Board and speak on his service. The applicant contends that he has never been afforded the opportunity to present his case for disability in person or through his own description, aside from paper applications, on which he is awaiting decisions. Per the Board’s Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant did not have mitigating medical or behavioral health conditions for the offenses which led to his separation from the Army. The electronic medical records (AHLTA) were reviewed with clinical encounters from June 2005 through January 2006 and a single entry in January 2009 (note: AHTLA implementation began in 2003). First outpatient antidepressant prescription recorded 17 November 2003. No subsequent prescription medications for behavioral health indications until the first inpatient antidepressant prescription recorded on 27 June 2005 at Landstuhl with subsequent Walter Reed NMMC prescriptions 28 June thru 11 July 2005. Inpatient occupational therapy notes June and July 2005 for Life Skills and Arts & Crafts Group. Behavioral health prescriptions back at Landstuhl 24 July 2005 through 5 January 2006. Laboratory results from Dec 2003 through Jan 2009 were reviewed and were remarkable as follows: 15 January 2006 – urine drug screen – positive tetrahydrocannabinol & positive tricyclic antidepressants. 30 Sep 2005 – urine drug screen – positive tetrahydrocannabinol. 29 June 2005 – urine drug screen – negative. Letter from Walter Reed Army Medical Center to Maryland Disability Determination Service, dated 9 June 2009. Request notes one psychiatric admission between 2005 and 2009. Maryland Disability Determination Service request, dated 13 May 2009 notes patient applying for disability due to PTSD, depression and shoulder injury. A limited review through the JLV (Joint Legacy Viewer) of the applicant’s Veterans Administration records notes 19 problems (17 VA entered) including psychotic disorder, PTSD, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, mood disorder, restless legs syndrome, polysubstance abuse (alcohol, marijuana, tobacco), lumbosacral strain and others. The Veteran’s Administration has not service-connected the applicant. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 23 January 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant’s discharge, the Board found that the applicant’s DD Form 214, block 27 contains the erroneous reentry code of 3. In view of the error, the Board directed an administrative correction to block 27 to read RE-4, as required by Army Regulations. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason/Authority/Codes/Characterization: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 27 January 2006 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): NIF (2) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (3) Basis for Separation: NIF (4) Recommended Characterization: NIF (5) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: NIF / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 April 2003 / 3 years / On 30 October 2003, the applicant extended his enlistment by one month, giving him a new ETS of 30 April 2006. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 96 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 74D10, Chemical Operations Specialist / 7 years, 4 months, 10 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 18 September 1998 to 17 September 2001 / HD USAR, 18 September 2001 to 31 March 2003 / NIF e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Iraq (11 February 2004 to 10 February 2005) f. Awards and Decorations: VUA, MUC, AGCM, NDSM, AFEM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL, ICM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with his application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt. Army policy states that although an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 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 specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The service record indicates that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 27, reentry code as 3. The applicant was discharged by reason of In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. Soldiers processed for in lieu of trial by court-martial will be assigned an SPD Code of KFS and an RE Code of 4. The applicant contends he was not granted the opportunity to appear before an administrative separation board. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs. This presumption 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 in this case and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. 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. Based on the available record, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 23 January 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant’s discharge, the Board found that the applicant’s DD Form 214, block 27 contains the erroneous reentry code of 3. In view of the error, the Board directed an administrative correction to block 27 to read RE-4, as required by Army Regulations. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change / RE-Code 4 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 AR20160012852 4