1.	APPLICANT’S NAME:  

	a.	Application Date:  13 June 2014

	b.	Date Received:  19 June 2014 

	c.	Counsel:  None

2.   REQUEST, REASON, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION:  The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable.  The applicant states, in pertinent part and in effect, he was mistreated and was not provided an opportunity for a representative to assist him in the discharge proceedings.  He applied for multiple service-connected medical conditions.  He feels his medical conditions were the reason for his discharge.  In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 29 July 2015, 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:  Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General, Under Honorable Conditions

	b.	Date of Discharge:  20 July 2012

	c.	Separation Facts:  NIF

		(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:  NIF

4.	SERVICE DETAILS:

	a.	Date/Period of Enlistment:  1 October 2010, 3 years, 38 weeks

	b.	Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score:  18 / HS Graduate / NIF

	c.	Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service:  E-3 (NIF) / 12N10, Horizontal Construction Engineer / 1 year, 9 months, 14 days
  
	d.	Prior Service/Characterizations:  None
  


	e.	Overseas Service/Combat Service:  None
  
	f.	Awards and Decorations:  NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR
  
	g.	Performance Ratings:  None
  
	h.	Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record:  NIF
  
	i.	Lost Time:  None
  
	j.	Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health:  NIF

5.	APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE:  

* DD Form 214 for service under current review; 
* Statement in Support of his VA claim, dated 13 June 2014;
* Two Reports to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (FLAG), dated 15 May 2012 and 16 July 2012;
* Three negative counseling statements for failing to be at his appointed place of duty; underage drinking; for being flagged; 
* Daily Staff Journal Duty Officer’s Log, dated 19-20 November 2011;
* Record of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 28 December 2011, indicates the suspended punishments of a reduction to E-1 imposed by a previous FG Article 15 was vacated due to failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 14 December 2011; and
* FG Article 15, dated 2 December 2011, for underage drinking on 20 November 2011.  The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1 and the reduction to E-2 was suspended, forfeiture of $733 per month for two months; and 45 days of extra duty and restriction.

6.	POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS:  None provided

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 ISSUE(S):  The applicant, seeking relief, contends he was never represented at his discharge proceedings.  He was mistreated and feels the service-connected medical conditions he applied for were the reason for his discharge.

The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army.  However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by his signature.  The DD Form 214 indicates he was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, by reason of a pattern of misconduct.  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.  

His contentions were carefully considered.  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 his issues.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has he produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that he may have been unjustly discriminated.  The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or sufficient evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge.  

The available service record contains no evidence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  

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 discharge packet, medical records) 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 view of the foregoing, based on the available evidence and government regularity, his discharge appears 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 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.	SPD/RE Code Change to:  					No Change

	e.	Restoration to Grade:  					No Change


Authenticating Official:




COL, US ARMY
Presiding Officer 
Army Discharge Review Board

























Legend:
AWOL - Absent Without Leave	GD - General Discharge	NA - Not applicable	 	SCM- Summary Court Martial
BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge	HS - High School	NIF - Not in File	SPCM - Special Court Martial
CG - Company Grade Article 15	HD - Honorable Discharge	OAD - Ordered to Active Duty	UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge  
CID - Criminal investigation Department	MP – Military Police	OMPF - Official Military Personnel File	UOTHC - Under Other Than  
FG - Field Grade	IADT – Initial Active Duty Training	RE - Reentry	                Honorable Conditions 	
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

AR20140010997

1