1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 21 September 2015 b. Date Received: 25 September 2015 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant states, in effect, he was unfairly discharged. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge was the result of his commands philosophy of giving as many Articles 15 as possible for any minor infraction making him an example. He contends he received two Articles 15 exactly two weeks apart, he received no rehabilitation and no measures were taken to adjust his situation. He also contends his misconduct was the result of the treatment and action of his first sergeant. He was discharged exactly six months after receiving the AGCM and the completion of three years of service without any negative counseling statements or Articles 15. Evidence in the record shows the applicant had a prior record review on 19 November 2010. In a personal appearance review conducted at Arlington, VA on 9 May 2016 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: 27 February 2008 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 11 February 2008 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: on numerous diverse occasions failed to pay debts between June 2007 and January 2008, On diverse occasions had nonsufficient funds to cover his checks between July 2007 and October 2007, Was disrespectful in language towards a noncommissioned officer on 5 October 2007, Made four false official statements and disobeyed two noncommissioned officers on 18 October 2007, and Was apprehended by the Lawton Municipal Court Bailiff 29 October 2007, on a warrant for failing to appear on 19 June 2007 (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 12 February 2008 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 18 February 2008 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 27 July 2004 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 20 years / HS Graduate / 115 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-4 /13M10, MLRS/HIMARS Crewmember, 88M10, Motor Transport Operator / 3 years, 6 months, and 28 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: Southwest Asia / Iraq (6 October 2005- 26 September 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: Article 15, imposed on 18 October 2007, for being disrespectful in language towards a noncommissioned officer on 5 October 2007. The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-3, forfeiture of $403.00, and extra duty and restriction for 14 days (CG). Article 15, imposed on 20 November 2007, for making four false official statements to a noncommissioned officer on 18 October 2007 and willfully disobeyed a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer x2 on 18 October 2007. The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-2, forfeiture of $340.00 (suspended), and extra duty and restriction for 14 days (CG). Several negative counseling statements dated between 11 June 2007 and 28 January 2008, for failure to maintain adequate POV insurance, failure to manage personal financial affairs, late payments, being disrespectful towards a noncommissioned officer, unsatisfactory condition of his barracks room, failure to pay just debts, making drawing, or uttering check, draft, or order without sufficient funds, insubordinate conduct towards a noncommissioned officer, and failure to obey a lawful order or regulation i. Lost Time: The applicant’s record of service indicates three days of time lost for being confined on 25 February 2008 until his release on 27 February 2008. j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 11 February 2008, shows the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative (or judicial) action deemed appropriated by his command 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: A DD Form 293. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None. 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 FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and the documents submitted with the 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. The applicant seeks relief contending he was unfairly discharged. He contends his discharge was the result of his commands philosophy of giving as many Articles 15 as possible for any minor infraction making him an example. He received no rehabilitation, no measures were taken to adjust his situation, and he was discharged exactly six months after receiving the AGCM after completion of three years of service. The applicant’s contentions 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. In fact, the applicant’s two Articles 15 which were received within a 30-day period and numerous negative counseling statements justify a pattern of misconduct. 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 discharged exactly six months after receiving the AGCM and the completion of three years of service without any negative counseling statements of Article 15’s. The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of his discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended for his service. 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. DOCUMENTS/TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): 1. Academy of Health Care Profesional SAT transcript – 1 page 2. X-Ray Technician Performance Evaluation Forms – 3 pages 3. ExpressMD Urgent Care letters – 2 pages 4. Supervisor Training Certificate of Completion – 1 page 5. Substance Abuse Awareness Supervisor Training Certificate of Training – 1 page 6. National American University B.S. Nursing letter, dated 22 January 2015 – 1 page 7. The Academy of Health Care Professions Limited Medical Radiologic Technologist training certificate, dated 18 December 2009 – 1 page 8. American Society of Radiologic Technologists certificate, dated 23 June 2009 – 1 page b. The applicant presented no additional contentions. c. Witness(es)/Observer(s): None 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 AR20150016312 5