1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 7 May 2015 b. Date Received: 11 May 2015 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, his discharge was improper because he was given only two days to gather all his affairs together and he was not given full training on transitioning to civilian life. He informed his chain of command that he would like to leave the Army to attend school and find a suitable employment, when asked if he wanted to stay in or leave. He was assured he would be receiving an honorable discharge. He was denied his educational benefits when he applied for school. The applicant states that he would like to go to school to better his children’s lives and his own. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant had no mitigating medical or behavioral health condition(s) for the offenses which led to his separation from the Army. The Active Duty electronic medical records were reviewed. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 29 July 2016, 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: 31 July 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 24 June 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: received a CG Article 15, dated 23 March 2012, for failing to report to his appointed place of duty twice and disrespecting a noncommissioned officer (23 March 2012); received a second CG Article 15, dated 11 June 2013, for multiple instances of failing to report to his appointed place of duty and making two false official statements; and having ample opportunity to modify his behavior to comport with Army standards, he failed to comply through several changes of leadership. (3) Recommended Characterization: General, Under Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 24 June 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: None (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 15 July 2013 / General, Under Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 15 November 2010 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-3 / 25F10, Network Switching Systems Operator-Maintainer / 2 years, 8 months, and 16 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: N/A h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: Negative counseling statements for failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on multiple occasions; missing scheduled appointment; being insubordinate towards an NCO on several occasions; making false official statements; showing up to work call in the wrong uniform; failing to comply with Army regulations; being considered for involuntary separation; and failing to obey an order. CG Article 15, dated 23 March 2012, for being disrespectful towards an NCO on 24 January 2012; and failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on two separate occasions on 16 February 2012 and 23 February 2012. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2 and 14 days of extra duty. CG Article 15, dated 5 June 2013, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on four separate occasions on 16 April 2013, 2 April 2013, 13 February 2013, and 25 January 2013, and making a false official statement on two separate occasions on 27 February 2013 and 26 February 2013. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $353 (suspended), 14 days of extra duty, and 14 days of restriction (suspended). i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: DA Form 2807-1 (Report of Medical History), dated 15 May 2013, indicates the applicant noted behavioral health issues and treatment. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 6 June 2013, indicates the applicant was diagnosed with depression, and the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, dated 7 May 2015, and DD Form 214. 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. Secretary of Defense Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments, subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, dated September 3, 2014, by implication provided the same guidance to the Service Discharge Review Boards whose decisions are reviewable by the Service Correction Boards. That memorandum provided PTSD or PTSD-related conditions "will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service." However, the memorandum also states, "Corrections Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat-related PTSD or PTSD-related conditions as a causative factor in the misconduct resulting in the discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Correction Boards will also exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct." 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 and the issues submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms that 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. The applicant’s contentions that the discharge was improper, because he was given only two days to gather all his affairs, he was not given full training on transitioning to civilian life, and he was assured of receiving an honorable discharge. 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 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. The applicant contends he was denied his educational benefits when he applied for school. 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. Although the applicant did not raise any behavioral issues, a careful review of his records indicates a diagnosis of depression. If the Board determines the applicant's behavioral health issues were significant contributing factors to his misconduct, it can grant appropriate relief by changing the reason for separation and/or the characterization of service. 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 29 July 2016, 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: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change SPD/RE Code to: No Change e. Restore (Restoration of) Grade to: NA 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 BH – Behavioral Health HD - Honorable Discharge OAD - Ordered to Active Duty SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OMPF - Official Military Personnel File TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP – Military Police – PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS – Entry Level Status MST – Military Sexual Trauma RE - Reentry UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20150008408 4