1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 21 September 2016 b. Date Received: 29 September 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, he served over 16 years without receiving any negative counseling or any Article 15 action. He led troops through multiple combat tours. He was promoted at a fast pace. However, despite informing his command sergeant major that he would be physically incapable of completing airborne operations due to the injuries he received while demonstrating on an air assault obstacle course, he was sent to an airborne infantry unit where his records were scrutinized. Although there were documentary evidence, charges were preferred for the badges he legitimately earned and badges that he had not earned, because he could not produce proper documentation. The legal advice he received indicated that with the unit having more personnel backing their decision, it would be better for him to take a UOTHC discharge. He was always a model Soldier. He was looking forward to serving over 25 years. He enlisted straight out of high school and was extremely motivated to serving his country like his father. He is disappointed with the personnel who assisted in his UOTHC decision. If permitted, he is still willing to proudly serve in the US Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 6 December 2017, and by a 3-2 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: 13 May 2016 c. Separation Facts: NIF (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: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 September 2011 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 98 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-7 / 25U40, Signal Support Systems Specialist, and 25L20, Cable Systems Installer/Maintainer / 15 years, 8 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA (14 September 2000 to 8 December 2004) / HD RA (9 December 2004 to 9 January 2007) / HD RA (10 January 2007 to 26 September 2011) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (12 January 2002 to 13 August 2002), Iraq (11 February 2003 to 17 February 2004), (Kuwait (10 March 2006 to 8 March 2007), Iraq (5 December 2008 to 28 November 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-4; AAM-2; AGCM-5; ICM-CS-2; GWOTSM; NCOPDR-3; ASR; OSR-4; NATOMDL; CAB g. Performance Ratings: Five NCOERs rendered during period under current review: 2 September 2011 thru 29 June 2012, Among the Best 1 July 2012 thru 30 June 2013, Among the Best 1 July 2013 thru 30 June 2014, Among the Best 30 June 2014 thru 18 December 2014, RFC, Marginal 19 December 2014 thru 1 September 2015, Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand with its associated documents, dated 31 March 2015, indicates the applicant was reprimanded for patronizing a prostitute. Separation Orders, dated 5 May 2016 i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, dated 21 September 2016, with Statement in Support of Claim; DD Form 214 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 applicant's service record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the 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 digitally authenticated by the applicant's signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 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 that the discharge was unjust were carefully reviewed; however, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the merits of his contentions. 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 any 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 evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it would be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the complete 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. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to any 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 expressed a desire to rejoin the military service, indicating that if permitted, he is willing to serve proudly, again. However, the applicant received an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Army Regulation 601-280 stipulates that an under other than honorable conditions discharge constitutes a non-waivable disqualification, thus the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. 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 6 December 2017, and by a 3-2 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 AR20160018501 1