1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 21 January 2016 b. Date Received: 11 February 2016 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, he would like an upgrade for the purpose of being able to receive educational benefits, as well as attaining a good job. The applicant contends that he paid and earned his right to receive his education benefits after serving almost five years, twice overseas, completing his first term honorably, and receiving several awards. He contends that his discharge was the result of being setup by his roommate based on lies about him being an alcoholic and his sexual gestures. 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. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 31 May 2017, 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: 5 September 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 28 July 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: intentionally exposed, in an indecent manner, his genitalia to PV2 S.C. (3 February 2015); and, in a sexual manner, told PV2 J.P., that he had not had sex with women lately, it's just been men (26 January 2015). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 28 July 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 19 August 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 23 January 2013 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 / HS Graduate / 84 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92G10, Food Service Specialist / 4 years, 6 months, 8 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 28 February 2011 to 22 January 2013 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Afghanistan (17 December 2012 to 17 August 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, ACM-CS, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Law Enforcement Report - Final, dated 12 May 2015, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation of Abusive Sexual Contact (adult, UCMJ - Article 120) and Indecent Exposure (UCMJ - Article 120c). FG Article 15, dated 25 June 2015, intentionally exposure, in an indecent manner, his genitalia to PV2 S.L.C. (3 February 2015) and said to PV2 J.K.P. in a sexual manner, that he had not had sex with women lately it's just been men, or words to that effect, which conduct was to the prejudice of good order and discipline, and of a nature to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces (26 January 2015). The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $773 pay per month for two months ($773 pay suspended), and an oral reprimand. The applicant received negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and performance counseling. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 7 July 2015, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with (Axis I) Impulse Control Disorder. It was noted that he could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and appreciated the difference between right and wrong. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 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 issues and documents submitted with his 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, such that he should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant contends that he paid and earned his right to receive his education benefits after serving almost five years, twice overseas, completing his first term honorably, and receiving several awards. He further contends that his discharge was the result of being setup by his roommate based on lies about him being an alcoholic and his sexual gestures. The applicant's contentions were noted; his service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered and the applicant is to be commended. Furthermore, although the applicant claims he was setup, 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 setup or lied on by his roommate or fellow Soldier's at the time of discharge. 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 has expressed his desire to have better job opportunities and the benefits of the GI Bill. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Furthermore, 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 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 31 May 2017, 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 Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change f. 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 AR20160003893 4