1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 18 April 2016 b. Date Received: 28 April 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, an upgrade would allow him to receive his full VA benefits, including his Post 911/GI Bill. His additional request is to be reimbursed for the accrued leave. He served his entire enlistment contract and was held 103 days past his ETS date. His entire service was honorable, except for the mistake he made by lying in a sworn statement. He does not agree with the severity of the punishment he received. He was reduced to E-1 and served 30 days confinement. He lost his accrued leave, GI Bill, and many of his veteran's benefits. The applicant listed the awards and service medals he earned, including his shoulder sleeve for his wartime service. The one mistake he made has a lifetime impact on him. He was young at the time of his discharge, and did not think of the consequences. He suffers from a mild form of PTSD, which he needs to be treated for. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, a behavior health reason for mitigation of his misconduct was not discovered. The applicant has no problems on his VA problem list in JLV, and also showed no service-connected disability connection. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 23 June 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 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 14 October 2005 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 6 October 2005 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: unlawfully stealing certain mail matter on more than one occasions between 1 January 2005 and 17 January 2005; making a false official statement to a commissioned officer on 17 January 2005; being derelict in the performance of his duties to safeguard the mail between 1 January 2005 and 17 January 2005; and violating First Infantry Division General Order No. 1, by possessing a cellular telephone without proper approval. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 21 August 2005, and 6 October 2005 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Waived, 6 October 2005, pursuant to an accepted "Offer to Plead Guilty," dated 24 August 2005, for charges referred to a summary court-martial (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 12 October 2005 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 5 July 2001 / 4 years (extended an additional period of 103 days for the convenience of the government) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 17 / HS Graduate / 121 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 4 years, 2 months, 15 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii, SWA / Iraq (19 January 2004 to 21 February 2005) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM; AGCM; NDSM; ICM; GWOTSM; ASR; OSR; CIB; VUA g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Report of Result of Trial and its associated documents show that the applicant was charged with and found guilty of the following charges in a summary court-martial on 7 September 2005: Charge I: two specifications of violating Article 92, UCMJ, for wrongfully possessing a cellular telephone, in violation of 1st Infantry Division General Order between 10 November 2004 and 4 February 2005, and being derelict in the performance of his duties between 1 January 2005 and 17 January 2005. Charge II: Violation of Article 107, UCMJ, for making a false official statement. Charge III: Violation of Article 134, UCMJ, for stealing certain mail matter between 1 January 2005 and 17 January 2005. The sentence consisted of a reduction to E-3 and 30 days of confinement. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 23 September 2005, indicates there was no evidence of a psychiatric condition, which would prevent the applicant from participating in any legal or administrative actions. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 24 days (Military confinement pursuant to a summary court-martial sentence: 7 September 2005 to 1 October 2005) / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), dated 18 April 2016, and DD Form 214. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided 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. 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, Misconduct (Serious Offense). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant's record of service and the issues submitted with his 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. By the incidents of serious misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and marred the quality of his service. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or sufficient evidence 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 an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill, and his full veteran's benefits. However, 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 applicant's contentions about the severity of his punishments and serving past his ETS date, were carefully considered. However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which 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 sufficient evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. Further, the evidence of record, his "Offer to Plead Guilty Appendix I, dated 21 August 2005, shows that in light of the referral of charges to a summary court-martial and pending administrative separation, the applicant agreed to comply with the adjustments of his ETS days according to AR 600-8-2, AR 635-200, and AR 601-280. The applicant contends the incident that caused his discharge was the only one in his entire Army career. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant contends that he was young at the time of the discharge and had not thought of the consequences. However, the record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to these incidents, the Board can find that his complete period of service was or was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. The applicant contends he should be reimbursed for the accrued leave he lost. However, the issue the applicant submitted is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge. The applicant's contentions about suffering from a mild form of PTSD that needs to be treated were carefully considered. However, the service record contains no evidence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition, or that he was subsequently been diagnosed with PTSD. 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 23 June 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 AR20160008489 6