1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 23 January 2017 b. Date Received: 10 February 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he was unfairly discharged while other Soldiers under the same circumstances remained eligible for service. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 16 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 28 August 2008 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 8 August 2008 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason for his discharge; while conspiring with other Soldiers, abused an over the counter cough medicine. His conduct shows a blatant disregard for military standards and his lack of concern for the wellbeing of himself and his peers was extremely alarming (23 February 2008). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 12 August 2008 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 18 August 2008 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 13 June 2006 / 3 years, 24 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 years / HS Graduate / 116 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 63B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic / 2 years, 2 months, 16 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 9 May 2008, for wrongfully exceeding the recommended dosage of Coricidin cough and cold medicine, an over the counter medication, which conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline (23 February 2008); conspired with PFC N.E., PV2 J.C.G., PFC T.W.H., to commit an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice; to wrongfully exceed the recommended dosage of Coricidin, an over the counter medication, which conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline; and in order to effect the object of the conspiracy, he, PFC N.E., PV2 J.C.G., PFC T.W.H., went to the Post Exchange on Warner Barracks, he and PFC T.W.H., purchased Coricidin cough and cold medicine (23 February 2008); reduction to PVT / E-1, forfeiture of $673 pay for two months, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 29 May 2008, relates that the applicant met retention requirements of Chapter 3, AR 40-501 and did not meet the criteria for a MEB. There was no evidence of an emotional or mental condition of sufficient severity to warrant disposition through medical channels. There was no evidence of a psychiatric condition, which would prevent the applicant from participating in any legal or administrative proceedings. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); and a DD Form 214. Additional document, an unsigned statement submitted by the applicant. 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 the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and document 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. By the misconduct (serious offense), the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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, he was unfairly discharged while other Soldiers under the same circumstances remained eligible for service. 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 contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was unfairly discharged. The method in which another Soldier's case was handled is not relevant to the applicant's case. Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case. 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 In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 16 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 AR20170002874 1