1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 16 February 2016 b. Date Received: 1 August 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 effect, he was discharged for minor infractions and as a civilian, his discharge does not reflect the time he served as a Soldier. He believes he was discharged for personal reasons rather than professional reasons. He was a good Soldier, who had made mistakes while off duty, specifically, he fell down the stairs while intoxicated and broke his leg. He states, he was offered a medical discharge, but he denied it because he wanted to deploy. As a result of his denial, his platoon sergeant was not happy and pushed to get him discharged. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 27 September 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 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 30 November 2010 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 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 9 July 2008 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 17 / HS Graduate / 102 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E3 / 12R10, Interior Electrician / 2 years, 3 months, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 17 October 2010, reflects the applicant committed the following offenses: Drunken driving (Article #111, UCMJ) (BAC.161) Traffic accident resulting in damage to property Traffic accident resulting in damage to property Provoking speech/gestures (Article #117, UCMJ) The report also reflects the applicant committed the following previous offenses: Wrongful introduction of a controlled substance (marijuana) (Article #112a, UCMJ) (17 June 2009) Wrongful possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) (Article #112a, UCMJ) (17 June 2009) Wrongful use of a controlled substance (marijuana) - Determined by other than urinalysis test (Article #112a, UCMJ) (1 July 2009) Controlled substance violations, use of marijuana - Determined by urinalysis test (Article #112a, UCMJ) (28 March 2010) Simple assault - consummated by a battery (domestic) (28 March 2010) General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 29 October 2010, for operating a motor vehicle while impaired on a public road under the influence of alcohol, causing traffic accident, and attempting to strike a Military Police officer after being apprehended (17 October 2010). The applicant was administered a breath alcohol test, which resulted in a reading of .161 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149. 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 14-12b 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. 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, 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, the presumption of government regularity prevails as it appears that all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The applicant's contentions about his discharge was based on personal reasons rather than professional reasons, were carefully considered. 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 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 contends that his platoon sergeant was not happy that he did not accept a medical discharge and pushed to get him discharged. However, the applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the available record that he ever sought such assistance. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant claims the offenses that caused his discharge were minor in nature. Although a minor incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. Further, the applicant's service record is void of the specific facts and circumstances that led to his discharge, but it does includes evidence that would explain why the applicant was discharged for a pattern of misconduct. The applicant contends that he had good service. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service based on his available records prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended for his accomplishments. 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 27 September 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 new Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. SPD/RE Code Change to: No Change f. Restoration to Grade: 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 AR20160013638 1