1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 19 July 2016 b. Date Received: 25 July 2015 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 the only thing he was convicted of during his summary court-martial was falsifying documents. The applicant was found not guilty of fraternization and adultery, and was reduced from E-7 to E-6 and was notified by his chain of command of a possible involuntary separation. The applicant requested to appear before an administrative separation board, wherein the board conducted a thorough review of his military records and letters of support and saw fit to separate him from the Army with a 12 month suspension. The applicant contends that the board recommended that he be retained in the Army; however, he believes that the approving authority’s decision to deny the board’s recommendation was influenced by his chain of command. The applicant states that the purpose of the administration separation board is for a Soldier to appear before a panel of superiors who are not within their rating scheme and be given a fair and impartial chance of fighting for their career. The applicant contends that he does not believe that is what happened in his case and that his chain of command heavily influenced the decisions, in all of the matters stated against him. The applicant asks that the Board review his case and truly consider changing the character of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable discharge. Through thorough review the Board will see that he maintained superior evaluations from the time he was promoted to sergeant until the time he was promoted to sergeant first class. He has always pushed himself to the next level and has always sought self-improvement and career progression. He has worked extremely hard over the past 13 years to give the Soldiers, his subordinates, and most importantly, the Army everything he had. He has maintained a spotless career record, minus the isolated event. Per the Board’s Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant did not have mitigating medical or behavioral health conditions for the offenses which led to his separation from the Army. The electronic medical records (AHLTA) were reviewed from February 2006 through Oct 2016. Clinical notes from June 2009 through September 2015 were reviewed. Radiology reports from February 2003 through April 2016 were reviewed. Mental Status Evaluation for clearance for Admin Separation dated 29 Sep 2015 with Axis I – adjustment disorder grief reaction; Axis II – defer; Axis III – lower back pain. PTSD Score 75 (positive). A limited review through the JLV (Joint Legacy Viewer) of the applicant’s Veterans Administration records notes 30 problems (8 VA entered including PTSD, depression, anxiety, insomnia and multiple dental issues). Applicant is service connected at 90%. The applicant met medical retention standards IAW (in accordance with) Chapter 3, Army Regulation (AR) 40-501, and following the provisions set forth in AR 635-40 that were applicable to the applicant’s era of service. The applicant’s medical conditions were duly considered during medical separation processing. A review of the available documentation found no evidence of a medical disability or condition which would support a change to the character or reason for the discharge. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 9 January 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant’s length and quality of service, to include his combat service, information from a prior period of honorable service, and his personal testimony. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changes to the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 30 May 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 7 December 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant created six Skill Port certificates of completion required for CIM Level I training, which certificates were false in that he had not completed the course described therein, and were then known by him to be so false. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 11 December 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 5 January 2016, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of his rights. On 4 February 2016, the administrative separation board convened and the applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended the applicant’s discharge with characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions); and, that the discharge be suspended for a period of 12 months. On 7 March 2016, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendations, with exception, of the administrative separation board and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The separation authority disapproved the recommendation of a suspension of the discharge for a period of 12 months. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 7 March 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 November 2011 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 28 / HS Graduate / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-7 / 38B30, Civil Affairs Specialist / 13 years, 10 months, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 26 July 2002 to 15 June 2007 / HD RA, 16 June 2007 to 31 October 2011 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Haiti, SWA / Iraq (14 February 2003 to 22 May 2003; 27 August 2004 to 28 April 2005; 4 January 2007 to 16 March 2008; and 31 May 2011 to 19 December 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: BSM, ARCOM-V, ARCOM-4, AAM-2, MUC, VUA, ASUA, AGCM-4, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, HSM-2, ICM-3CS, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR, CIB, EIB, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 3 September 2011 thru 10 February 2012, Among The Best 10 February 2012 thru 14 January 2015, Fully Capable 15 November thru 14 January 2016, Did Not Meet Standard h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: As described in preceding paragraphs 3c (2) and (5). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 29 September 2015, reflects the applicant required further examination or testing to finalize diagnosis and recommendations. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder Grief Reaction. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with his 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 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, such that he should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant contends his chain of command heavily influenced the separation authority’s decision. However, 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 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 other Soldiers with similar offenses were not discharged or received any administrative actions against them. However, the method in which another Soldier’s case was handled is not relevant to the applicant’s case. Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case. The applicant contends that he had good service, which included four 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. 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. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional documents and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional documents: Character Statements – 10 pages b. The applicant presented no additional contentions. c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): None 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 9 January 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant’s length and quality of service, to include his combat service, information from a prior period of honorable service, and his personal testimony. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changes to the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions), AR 635-200 Chapter 14-12a d. Change SPD / RE Code to: JKN / 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 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 AR20160012597 5