1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 28 July 2016 b. Date Received: 1 August 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 general (under honorable conditions) or honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, his prior service consisted of well over eight years, which included three deployments to Afghanistan and an overseas tour to Italy, and without any misconduct or judicial actions toward him. His situation was unique. He was singled out and targeted to protect a high ranking individual. His situation was "swept under the rug" and he was threatened with jail time and forced to agree with the discharge. He has witness statements and his original statement submitted to the USASOC Inspector General, which was also ignored. He has earned his medical and unemployment benefits through his prior honorable service and services in the war zone. The benefits were unjustly taken from him due to a personal bitter relationship between his prior commander and 1SG against him. He cannot apply for federal employment or receive a decent job due his current discharge. He has been denied unemployment benefits and medical coverage. An upgrade would provide him opportunities in society to rebuild his life. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 2 October 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 25 November 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): On 10 September 2013, the following charges were preferred, with recommendations to refer to trial by a special court-martial empowered to adjudge a bad conduct discharge: Charge I: Four specifications of violating Article 107, UCMJ, for making false official statements on 23 June 2009, 23 January 2013, 8 February 2013, and 20 February 2013 Charge II: Violation of Article 134, UCMJ, for making a false statement to USAA, in support of a claim, for payment on 20 March 2013. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 23 October 2013 (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial (4) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (5) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 14 November 2013 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 24 May 2012 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 94 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 92Y1P, Unit Supply Specialist / 9 years, 3 months, 14 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA (12 August 2004 to 28 June 2006) / HD RA (29 June 2006 to 2 July 2010) / HD RA (3 July 2010 to 23 May 2012) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Italy, SWA / Afghanistan (13 April 2005 to 13 January 2006), (22 May 2007 to 29 July 2008), (27 November 2009 to 15 November 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM; AAM-3; AGCM-2; NDSM; ACM-2CS; GWOTSM; NCOPDR-2; ASR; OSR-4; NATOMDL; CAB g. Performance Ratings: One NCOER rendered during period under current review: 14 March 2012 thru 18 February 2013, Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 21 September 2012, indicates the applicant was reprimanded for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Charge Sheet described at the preceding paragraph 3c(1). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), dated 28 July 2016; memorandum for suspension of installation driving privileges, dated 12 October 2013; applicant's statement, dated 20 February 2013; memorandum for suspension of installation driving privileges, dated 27 February 2012; seven counseling statements, dated 25 March 2013, 1 March 2013, 11 February 2013, 9 January 2013, 28 February 2013, 23 January 2013, and 15 October 2013; sworn statement, dated 28 February 2013; sworn statement, dated 21 June 2013; and Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions, dated 15 October 2013. 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 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. AR 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 "KFS" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, "In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial." The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "KFS" will be assigned an RE Code of 4. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions) or honorable. The applicant's available record of service, and the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. The applicant, in consultation with legal counsel voluntarily requested, in writing, a discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense, and he indicated he understood he could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veteran's benefits. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. Hrecord documents no other acts of significant achievement or valor and did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority. 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 was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. The applicant contends that he was singled out and targeted to protect a higher ranking individual; however, he 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. 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 contends the discharge was unjust because his "situation was 'swept under the rug' and he was threatened with jail time and forced to agree with the discharge." 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. The applicant contends his medical and unemployment benefits that he earned through prior service were unjustly taken from him, and that he is unable to apply for federal employment or a decent job with his current discharge. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Further, eligibility for veterans' benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill and medical benefits do 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. Further, as to his contentions regarding his previous services, AR 635-8, paragraph 5-2, provides instructions on when not to prepare a DD Form 214. In pertinent part, according to paragraph 5-2f, a DD Form 214 will not be prepared for Soldiers who are discharged for immediate reenlistment in the Regular Army. Therefore, his previous honorable services are noted on his DD Form 214 in block 18, as continuous honorable active service with immediate reenlistment dates. 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. 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 2 October 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 AR20160013758 3