1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 1 June 2016 b. Date Received: 27 June 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his representative told him he would receive a general discharge due to his service and his combat time. He was wrongfully accused and caught up with another Soldier trying to get people in trouble. He has support statements showing he was a good Soldier. He is trying to get compensation for injuries he sustained in the military during his honorable service. He had three honorable periods of service and wants separate DD Forms 214 for each of them. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 15 September 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 25 July 2011 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date Charges Were Preferred: 4 April 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458, Charge Sheet which indicate on 4 April 2011, the applicant was charged with wrongfully distributing one pound of marijuana (3 November 2010). (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 7 June 2011, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 27 June 2011 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions / the applicant was reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 12 April 2010 / 6 years / retained in service 21 days for the convenience of the government per AR 635-200. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 27 years / HS Grad / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 19D10, Cavalry Scout / 12 years, 9 months, 11 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 15 October 1998 to 27 March 2001 / HD RA, 28 March 2001 to 4 July 2005 / HD RA, 5 July 2005 to 11 April 2010 / HD* (*Service Period Based on evidence introduced by applicant) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq x5 (18 November 2009 to 20 July 2010), (11 March 2007 to 12 June 2008), (12 January 2005 to 6 January 2006), (2 January 2003 to 15 August 2003) and (2 March 2002 to 20 August 2002). f. Awards and Decorations: PH, ARCOM-4, AAM-2, AGCM-4, NDSM, AFEM, GWOTEM, ICM-6CS, GWOTSM, NOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-2, CAB g. Performance Ratings: April 2005 to 13 August 2008, Fully Capable 14 August 2008 to 13 August 2009, Among The Best 2 January 2010 to 1 December 2010, Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 1 December 2010, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by CPT T.H., not to have contact with his family, an order which it was his duty to obey, did fail to obey the same by wrongfully going to his place of residence during his lunch break (9 November 2010). The punishment consisted of reduction to SPC / E-4; forfeiture of $1,146 for two months; extra duty and restriction for 45 days and an oral reprimand. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); DD Form 149 (two pages); three honorable discharge certificates; three oath of enlistments; three character / support statements; e-mail traffic (three pages); Enlisted Record Brief (ERB); and a letter, Director, Case Management Division. 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 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 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 the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. His record documents several acts of significant achievement and combat duty x5; however, it did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority at the time of discharge due to the severity of the charges. The applicant seeks relief contending, his representative told him he would receive a general discharge due to his service and combat time. The applicant bears the burden presenting of substantial and credible evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he would receive a general discharge. The applicant further contends, he was wrongfully accused and caught up with another Soldier trying to get people in trouble. 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 contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was wrongfully accused. The applicant also contends, he has support statements showing he was a good Soldier. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. However, some of the persons providing the character reference statements were in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command and some were not. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. The applicant additionally contends, he is trying to get compensation for injuries sustained in the military during honorable service. 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. Lastly, the applicant contends, he had three honorable periods of service and wants separate DD Forms 214 for each of them. His last reenlistment was 5 July 2005 and regulations in effect at the time did not authorize the issue of a separate DD Form 214. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) governs the preparation of the DD Form 214. It also states that effective 1 October 1979, DD Forms 214 would no longer be issued for immediate reenlistments and that all service would be continuous from the date the last DD Form 214 was issued. Prior to 1 October 1979, a DD Form 214 was prepared when a Soldier was discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment. 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 15 September 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 new Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. SPD/RE Code Change to: No Change f. Restoration to Grade: 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 AR20160012108 2