1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 6 October 2016 b. Date Received: 16 November 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 would like an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to find better employment to take care of his family. He contends his JAG lawyers advised him at the time of discharge to sign anything his chain of command presented him to allow him to go take care of his family. He joined the military to serve his country, he is so proud to have served the short time he did. He was on the commandant's list at the Warrior Leadership Course and his PT test score great. He was told by his warrant officer that he was the best clerk he had ever had in his entire military career. He contends he was on quarters for a dislocated shoulder after a jump, he was in terrible pain, but he was pulled out of his room to come to work and he was sent to the FBI office to be interrogated. He would have liked to make a career of his military service, but his chain of command did their best to make his career short. He does not believe he deserves the code on his discharge documents; that code is pure human misjudgment instead of going by the law and regulation. He is currently having a hard time moving forward in his life because of his chain of commands misjudgment. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 10 July 2017, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable. The Board found the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, to include his combat service, the circumstances surrounding his discharge (i.e. lack of command attention and compassion with regards to severe family matters), and post-service accomplishments (i.e. advance degree (MBA)) mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changes to the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 16 March 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 31 January 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: making a false official statement to First Sergeant B. J. Y., by stating that he had to give his landlord a 90 day move out notice and that he needed a 30 day extension to move out since his landlord was on holiday on 25 July 2010; He transcribed and forged a letter and signature from his spouse' s physician which requested that he be transferred to the United States to take care of his spouse on 2 February 2011; He disobeyed a lawful order from SFC B. K. B., to physically sign in from leave on 1 June 2011; He transcribed and forged another letter and signature form his spouse's physician which requested that he be transferred to the United States to take care of his spouse on 12 April 2011; and Missing movement on 11 July 2011. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 10 February 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon receiving a characterization of service or description of separation no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions) (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 11 March 2008 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 27 / HS Graduate / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist / 6 years, 9 months, 1 day d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 15 November 2004 to 5 January 2005 / NA ADT, 6 January 2005 to 14 June 2005 / UNC USAR, 15 June 2005 to 7 November 2005 / NA RA, 8 November 2005 to 10 March 2010 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Afghanistan (17 February 2006 to 17 February 2007) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM, ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR-2, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 16 August 2011, for making a false official statement to First Sergeant B.J.Y., on 25 July 2010 and 16 November 2010, with intent to defraud, falsely made in its entirety the signature of A.E.S., DO, as an endorsement to a certain writing in the following words and figures, to wit; a letter to the command requesting that he be transferred to the United States to take care of his spouse on 2 February 2011 and 12 April 2011, missing movement on 11 July 2011, and disobeying a lawful order from SFC B.K. B., an noncommissioned officer, to physically sign in from leave, an order which was his duty to obey on 1 June 2011. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-2, 45 days extra duty, and 45 days restriction (suspended). Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 27 October 2011, shows the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings. He was cleared for separation from a behavioral health perspective. 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: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and a self-authored letter. 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 14-12c states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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 the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. 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 legal counsel advised him at the time of discharge to sign anything and that his chain of command prevented him from being allowed to go take care of his family. He does not believe he deserves the codes on his discharge documents and that they are pure human misjudgment instead of going by the law and regulation. 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 contentions that he was advised by his legal counsel to sign anything or that his chain of command prevented him from being allowed to take care of his family. 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. The applicant contends he joined the military to serve his country, he is so proud to have served the short time he did. He was on the commandant's list at the Warrior Leadership Course and his PT test score were great. He was told by his warrant officer that he was the best clerk he had ever had in his entire military career. The applicant's 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 on his accomplishments. The applicant contends he does not believe he deserves the code on his discharge documents; code is pure human misjudgment instead of going by the law and regulation. However, by regulation, a UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of misconduct (serious offense). It appears the applicant's generally good record of service was the basis for his receiving a GD instead of the normal UOTHC discharge. The applicant expressed his desire for an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to find better employment to take care of his family. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): Command separation documents - 15 pages E-mail communications between the applicant and his NCO - 9 pages Additional documents regarding the dates in question - 12 pages b. The applicant presented no additional contentions. c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): None. 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 10 July 2017, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable. The Board found the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, to include his combat service, the circumstances surrounding his discharge (i.e. lack of command attention and compassion with regards to severe family matters), and post-service accomplishments (i.e. advance degree (MBA)) mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changes to the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a e. Change SPD/RE Code to: Change SPD to JKN / No change to RE code f. Restore 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 AR20160018870 5