1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 20 July 2015 b. Date Received: 31 July 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 unjust because he believes he is deserving an honorable discharge for all his hard work in his five years of service, which included two reenlistments. The applicant contends that he was not given the opportunity to defend himself. The applicant contends his discharge was unjust because he was not given the opportunity to defend himself. The separation proceedings were initiated during the time he was disputing the issues in the civilian courts and he was discharged prior to his case being settled. The applicant states that he has been declared innocent and his records are clean; therefore, the reason in which he was discharged does not exist. He served his country honorable and proudly and he believes he deserves the recognition for it. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 28 September 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General, Under Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 27 January 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 18 November 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: assaulted his spouse (14 February 2014); speeding on post and driving on a suspended license (18 July 2014); failed to obey a lawful order issued by a noncommissioned officer (12 and 13 August 2014); and, failed to report to his appointed place of duty (16 September 2014). (3) Recommended Characterization: General, Under Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 20 November 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: N/A (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 7 January 2015 / General, Under Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 12 February 2014 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 24 years / GED / 103 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-4 / 12B10, Combat Engineer / 5 years, 4 months, and 14 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: RA, 14 September 2009 – 29 October 2011 / HD RA, 30 October 2011 – 11 February 2014 / HD e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (20 January 2011 – 22 December 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, AGCM, NDSM, GWTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: N/A h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 11 August 2013, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation for failure to maintain insurance. Military Police Report, dated 16 February 2014, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation for aggravated assault, false imprisonment, and spouse abuse (civilian female victim). Military Police Report, dated 18 July 2014, reflects the applicant was the subject of investigation for driving while his license was suspended and speeding. The Kennedy Law Firm, PLLC letter addressed to the applicant, dated 8 September 2014, informed the applicant that his matter was scheduled to be dismissed on March 6, 2014, so long as he stayed out of trouble, paid all costs and attends ten anger management classes. Blanchfield Army Community Hospital Memorandum, dated 5 November 2014, Subject: Domestic Abuse Group, states the applicant “has completed 28 of 28 domestic abuse treatment sessions as of 5 November 2014, thus partially meeting requirements for group completion. This psycho-education group encompasses all required topics as outlined in Kentucky and Tennessee State statutes.” Several DA Forms 4856 (Developmental Counseling), dated between 20 March 2014 and 22 July 2014, for failure to obey, assault, and communicating a threat, speeding, driving on a suspended license, driving without insurance, providing support to his spouse, failing to report to his appointed place of duty, receiving a traffic citation, failure to bring in his ASUs for inspection, failure to schedule ACS finance counseling, and recommendation for chapter separation. i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 25 July 2014, reflects the applicant was screened for PTSD and mTBI IAW OTSG/MEDCOM policy Memo 10-040. Both screens were negative. The applicant was psychiatrically cleared for Chapter 14-12 action. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application, dated 20 July 2015. 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 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 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 contends his discharge was unjust because he was not given the opportunity to defend himself. The separation proceedings were initiated during the time he was disputing the issues in the civilian courts and he was discharged prior to his case being settled. The applicant’s contention were noted; 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 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 that he was declared innocent and his records are clean; therefore, the reason in which he was discharged does not exist. However, based on the letter from the Kennedy Law Firm, PLLC previously listed in paragraph 4h, it appears the dismissal was likely the result of the applicant having met the criterion stipulated within the letter. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that a Soldier may be separated when initially convicted by civil authorities, or when action is taken that is tantamount to a finding of guilty, if a punitive discharge authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts Martial. The applicant contends his discharge was unjust because of all his hard work in his five years of service which included two reenlistments. 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. The applicant is to be commended for his good service and it should be noted by regulation, an under other than honorable conditions (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 general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) instead of the normal UOTHC 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. 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 28 September 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/Issue a New Separation Order: 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: 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 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 VA - Veterans Affair ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20150012547 1