1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 30 October 2015 b. Date Received: 5 November 2015 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he made a bad decision in the past. He was an honorable Soldier who trained Soldiers to their full potential. His discharge has been hard to overcome; however, he has been able to obtain employment as an internationally certified petro- chemical inspector that allows him to use skills that he attained in the military. It has been a long process, but he is where he wants to be in life, with the exception of his discharge. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 7 December 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635- 200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 14 December 2005 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 17 November 2005, reflects the applicant was charged with violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, AWOL. (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason: Charge: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, AWOL (2 September to 11 November 2005) (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 17 November 2005 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 29 November 2005 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 November 2001 / NIF b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 27 / GED / 93 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 19K10, M1 Armor Crewman / 6 years, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: 30 September 1999 to 31 October 2001 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, AGCM, NDSM, KDSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR, GWOTSM g. Performance Ratings: April 2004 thru March 2005, Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Three DA Forms 4187 reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 2 September 2005; From "AWOL" to "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," effective 2 October 2005; and, From "DFR" to "Attached/Present for Duty," effective 11 November 2005. DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 17 November 2005, described at the preceding paragraph 3c(2). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 69 days (AWOL, 2 September to 10 November 2005) / Surrendered to military authorities j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with all allied documents listed in block 14 of the application. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant works as an internationally certified petro- chemical inspector. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Army policy states that although an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant's available record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The applicant's contentions were carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs. This presumption is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity in this case and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. The applicant contends that he had good service, which included three combat tours. 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 accomplishments. If the applicant desires a personal appearance, it is his responsibility to meet the burden of proof since the evidence is not available in the official record. The applicant will need to provide the appropriate documents or other evidence (i.e., discharge packet) sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration. Based on the available record, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 7 December 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: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NCO - Noncommissioned Officer 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 NOS - Not Otherwise Specified SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OAD - Ordered to Active Duty TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP - Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS - Entry Level Status MST - Military Sexual Trauma PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable RE - Reentry VA - Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20150018009 1