1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 8 September 2016 b. Date Received: 21 September 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 receive education benefits. He contends he is currently enrolled in school and would like to receive his post 9/11 GI benefits. He was told upon his discharge that he would have no problems getting upgraded to honorable. He was not told that he had to contact anyone about the upgraded characterization, he was simply told that he would automatically be upgraded six months after his discharge. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 17 November 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: Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 8 August 2005 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 13 July 2005 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 26 June 2002 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / GED / 95 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 88M10, Motor Transportation Operator / 6 years, 1 month, 11 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG / ADT, 28 June 1999 to 15 December 1999 / UNC ARNG, 16 December 1999 to 25 June 2002 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (28 July 2002 to 1 February 2003) f. Awards and Decorations: GWOTSM, NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 24 February 2004, for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x4 on (20 September 2002, 15 April 2003, 29 September 2003, and 18 November 2003), through neglect missed the movement of his flight, which was his requirement in the course of his duty to move on 1 October 2003, failed to obey a lawful general regulation by wrongfully not shaving on 11 April 2003, and failed to pay a debt to PV2 D, in the sum of $42.21 for a phone bill which was due on 29 December 2003. The punishment consisted reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $278 pay per month for one month (suspended), and 14 days extra duty. The applicant received several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and performance counseling. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 28 June 2005, which shows the applicant was diagnosed with an Axis 1 for V62.81 Relational Problems NOS; Axis II 71.09 No Dx; and Axis III 278.0 Obesity. It was noted that the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings and was mentally responsible. The evaluation revealed no evidence of suicidal or homicidal behavior, altered thought process or any other mental health condition that would explain the behavior that resulted in the initiation of his administrative action. He was psychologically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriated by his command. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application. 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 available record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the complete facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. However, the applicant's record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, by reason of Misconduct, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). Barring evidence to the contrary, all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant would have been protected throughout the separation process. The applicant seek relief contending that at the time of discharge he was told he would have no problems getting his discharge upgraded to honorable. He was not told he had to contact anyone, he was simply told that he would automatically be upgraded six months after his discharge. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, the US Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 293 requesting a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines the characterization of service or the reasons for discharge, or both, were improper or inequitable. 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 available record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it is 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 completes facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. The applicant expressed his desire for an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to receive education benefits. He contends he is currently enrolled in school and would like to receive his post 9/11 GI benefits. 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. 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 the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 17 November 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 a New Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change f. Restore (Restoration of) Grade 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 AR20160015541 4