1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 1 May 2015 b. Date Received: 26 May 2015 c. Counsel: Yes 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he would like an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to pursue a Master’s degree in education and teach in the city of Las Vegas. He contends he was unfairly treated at the time of discharge. His misconduct was the result of being away from the support of his family for the first time and encountering pressures from his imminent divorce. At the time of his discharge, the majority of his unit was deployed to the Philippines, leaving his noncommissioned officer support channel as well as the ranking officers that he built a profession rapport with, unable to speak on his behalf at the time. The applicant referred to his legal defense officer’s memo that stated there were no rehabilitation efforts made nor were any sequence of magic language establishing a pattern of misconduct. In addition, the commander’s report lacked documentation of a court-martial, Soldier rehabilitation, or any Article 15 action. He contends he was not allowed to speak with the Chaplin, mental health, as well as the alcohol and substance abuse office. He was not allowed any method of mental or religious comfort, he was escorted to and from all appointments, as well as coerced about decisions pertaining to his separation. 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 conditions for the offenses. The Active Duty electronic medical records were reviewed. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 5 August 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: 6 April 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 11 March 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was arrested for assault on 1 January 2010 and for a physical altercation at the Arctic Chill on 6 March 2010. (3) Recommended Characterization: General, Under Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 15 March 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: N/A (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 31 March 2010 / General, Under Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 4 September 2008 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 19 / GED / 102 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-3 / 21W10, Carpentry/Masonry Specialist / 1 year, 7 months, and 3 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: District/Superior Court for the state of Alaska at Anchorage court documents for an incident that occurred on or about 8 January 2010. Several negative counseling statements, dated between 11 January 2010 and 9 March 2010, for terms of his bail, mishap at an on-post bar, and command directive for denied leave. DA Form 2807-1 (Report of Medical History), dated 10 March 2010, reflects the applicant reported that everything depressed him. The applicant was referred to behavioral health services for mild clinical depression. Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation, dated 15 March 2010, indicates the applicant showed no evidence of a metal disorder. He had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceeding and was mentally responsible. i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, dated 1 May 2015; a self-authored statement; DD Form 214; several letters of support/recommendation; copy of his separation documents; and several course completion certificates. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has participated, as well as completed multiple programs, both scholastic and professional development. He has taken the MLK/Gandhi pledge of nonviolence, started a tie drive for inner-city kids, and has personally conducted a workshop teaching the students how to properly dress for interviews. He has also received his Bachelors of Science in Sociology from the College at Brockport. 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. Army Regulation 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 "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, pattern of misconduct. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKA" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 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), provided guidance to help ensure consistency across the military services in consideration of PTSD relevant to Service Members’ discharges. “Liberal consideration will be given in petitions for changes in characterization of service to service treatment record entries which document one of more symptoms which meet the diagnostic criteria of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or related conditions. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations which document PTSD or PTSD-related conditions connected to military services. In cases where Service Records or any document from the period of service substantiated the existence of one or more symptoms of what is now recognized as PTSD or PTSD-related condition during the time of service, liberal consideration will be given to finding that PTSD existed at the time of service. Liberal consideration will also be given in cases where civilian providers confer diagnoses of PTSD or PTSD-related conditions, when case records contain narratives that support symptomatology at the time of service, or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that PTSD or a PTSD-related disorder existed at the time of discharge which might have mitigated the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. This guidance in not applicable to cases involving pre-existing conditions which are determined not to have been incurred or aggravated while in military service.” “Conditions documented in the record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which PTSD or PTSD related conditions may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Correction boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service 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 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 and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant’s record of service, the documents and the issues submitted with the 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 appropriate SPD code and narrative reason to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged for a pattern of misconduct is “JKA” and the RE code is 3. The regulation further stipulates no deviation is authorized. 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, he was unfairly treated at the time of separation. 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 contention that he was unfairly treated at the time of discharge. 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. It should also be noted that, by regulation, a UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of a pattern of misconduct. 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’s post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application and in the documents with the application and the applicant is to be commended for his accomplishments. The applicant expressed his desire for an upgrade for the purpose of being able to pursue a Master’s degree in education and teach in the city of Las Vegas. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Also 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. 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 5 August 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 AR20150009258 5