1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 19 July 2016 b. Date Received: 25 July 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, that he would like an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to utilize his GI Bill benefits for education. He contends his discharge was inequitable because it was based on two unsatisfactory performances in a one month period over his 44 months of service. Upon further review of his military and personal records he has no other derogatory actions in his files. He believes he was an upstanding Soldier while in the military who always put 110% into every assignment or task he was given. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 15 September 2017 and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, and matters surrounding the discharge (i.e. discharge not IAW AR 635-5-1, Chapter 13) and is now inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable, change the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 13-2e, the narrative reason for separation to Physical Standards and the separation code to JFT. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Unsatisfactory Performance / AR 635- 200, Chapter 13 / JHJ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 21 June 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 25 May 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason: failing two consecutive Army Physical Fitness Test on or about 29 March 2016 and 25 April 2016. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 4 May 2016 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 23 October 2012 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 68W10, Health Care Specialist / 3 years, 7 months, 29 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Copies of several Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecards. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 29 February 2016, which indicates the applicant was cleared from a psychological standpoint for any administrative action deemed appropriated by his command. The applicant received negative counseling statements for APFT failures. 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 the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this Chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. Army policy states that a general, under honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, an honorable discharge may be granted in meritorious cases. 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 record confirms that the applicant's discharge was appropriate because of the unsatisfactory performance which diminished the quality of his service. 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 seeks relief contending his discharge was inequitable because it was based on two unsatisfactory performances in a one month period over his 44 months of service. Upon further review of his military and personal records he has no other derogatory actions in his files. He believes he was an upstanding Soldier while in the military who always put 110% into every assignment or task he was given. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, his service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered and the applicant is to be commended. 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 this issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that his discharge was inequitable. In fact, as noted in the applicant's counseling statements he was aware that his failure to meet minimum Army standards was an overall indication of his less than acceptable fitness level/standards. Therefore, it appears as a result of the applicant's inability to meet the minimum standards, separation action was initiated. 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 applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that he would like an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to utilize his GI Bill benefits for education. 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. 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 15 September 2017 and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, and matters surrounding the discharge (i.e. discharge not IAW AR 635-5-1, Chapter 13) and is now inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable, change the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 13-2e, the narrative reason for separation to Physical Standards and the separation code to JFT. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Physical Standards d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 13-2e e. Change SPD / RE Code to: Change SPD to JFT / No change to RE code f. Restore Grade / Rank 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 AR20160013976 1