1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 13 July 2016 b. Date Received: 15 July 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. The Board would consider him for a possible upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) to honorable, and to change the narrative reason for his discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, he was wrongfully discharged due to false statements from different commanders placed in his separation packet, and imposition of improper due process of his case. (The applicant provided a lengthy detail of the events and circumstances surrounding his discharge.) Since his discharge, his employment with the Department of the Navy was revoked due to the Army not closing the investigation of his TS/SCI clearance access suspension. He was granted that access in March 2014. He served for 16 years with no adverse information in his record. His discharge was too harsh of a punishment for the offense. He would like to be reconsidered for active duty service to complete his career with the US Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 2 May 2018, 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: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b / JNC / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 14 October 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 14 March 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was required to show cause for retention on active duty due to the following reasons: On 17 September 2013, while in Afghanistan, he wrongfully possessed 150 tablets of Stanozolol, a Schedule III controlled substance, while receiving special pay under 37 USC § 310. On 3 March 2014, he received a GO Article 15 for the misconduct. The punishment imposed was forfeiture of $500 pay per month for two months. His conduct was unbecoming of an officer. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) DA Ad Hoc Review Board Recommendation: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 15 September 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 5 October 2011 / Indefinite term for Appointment as a Warrant Officer b. Age at Appointment / Education / GT Score: 35 / Bachelor of Arts Degree / NA c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: WO1 / 352N0, Signals Intelligence Technician / 16 years, 15 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA (30 September 1998 to 8 October 2001) / HD RA (9 October 2001 to 14 May 2006) / HD RA (15 May 2006 to 4 October 2011) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (1 March 2009 to 6 October 2009); Afghanistan (23 February 2012 to 25 September 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: MSM; JSCOM; ARCOM-3; JSAM; AAM; AGCM-4; NDSM; ACM-CS; ICM-CS; GWOTSM; KDSM; NCOPDR-3; ASR; JMUA; MUC g. Performance Ratings: Two OERs, as follows: 17 October 2011 thru 18 February 2013, Outstanding Performance, Must Promote 19 February 2013 thru 18 February 2014 (Referred), Satisfactory Performance, Promote h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CID Report, dated 20 September 2013, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for wrongful possession of dangerous drugs (Steroids), postal violations, and wrongful introduction of dangerous drugs (Steroids). GO Article 15 and its associated documents, dated 3 March 2014, for wrongfully possessing 150 tablets of Stanozolol, a Schedule III controlled substance on 17 September 2013. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $500 pay per month for two months. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 3 April 2014, cleared the applicant from a psychological standpoint, for any administrative action as his command deemed necessary. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), dated 13 July 2016, with self-authored statement; MaxiMedicine Order Information; applicant's sworn statement, dated 17 September 2013; email correspondence, dated 22 November 2013; revoked promotion orders, dated 22 November 2013; counseling statement, dated 25 November 2013; FLAG action, dated 9 April 2014; CID Report, dated 20 September 2013; excerpts on Schedule III items; pictures depicting packaging boxes/illegible items; applicant's statement, dated 24 January 2014; three character reference/supporting statements; three letters of recommendation, dated 6, 10, and 16 August 2010; memorandum, dated 13 March 2014, subject: Initiation of Elimination; memorandum of acknowledgment of receipt; applicant's request for retention; memoranda of support, dated 8 April 2014, 2 February 2014; spouse's statement, dated 26 September 2014; two email correspondence, dated 5 September 2014; sworn statement, dated 4 September 2014; email correspondence, dated 17 September 2014; DASA decision message, dated 16 September 2014; memorandum, dated 19 September 2014; DASA decision memorandum, dated 15 September 2014; several email correspondence, dated 23-24 September 2014; four memoranda, dated 5 August 2014, 11 July 2014; IG Action Request, dated 3 October 2014; and three email correspondence, dated 20-21 May 2015, and 25 August 2015. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interest of national security. A discharge of honorable, general (under honorable conditions), or under other than honorable conditions characterization of service may be granted. 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 "JNC" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b, unacceptable conduct. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed, in pertinent part, by DoDI 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge, unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. Accordingly, the applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and to change the narrative reason for his discharge. The applicant's record of service, and 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 Army officers. It brought discredit on the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant provided no corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the unacceptable conduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained. Further, the applicant's available record contains no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the discharge was unjust because it was based on false statements from different commanders placed in his separation packet, and the imposition of improper due process of his case. However, 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 his issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that he may have been unjustly discharged. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further sufficient evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade and to change the narrative reason for his discharge. The rationale the applicant provided as the basis for what he believes was an unfair discharge is not supportable by the evidence contained in the record and can only be viewed as speculative in nature. The narrative reason for his separation is governed by specific directives. The narrative reason specified by AR 635-5-1 for a discharge under AR 600-8-24, chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b is "Unacceptable Conduct," and the separation code is JNC. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends his employment with the Department of the Navy was revoked due to the Army not closing the investigation of his TS/SCI clearance access suspension, perhaps an indication that an upgrade of his discharge would allow him to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Furthermore, the issue the applicant submitted is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued. The applicant contends he served for 16 years with no other adverse information in his record. Although an isolated 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. Further, the applicant contends his discharge was too harsh of a punishment for the offense, an indication that the offense which caused his discharge was minor in nature. However, the service record indicates the applicant committed a discrediting offense, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. As stated previously, the applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant desires to be reconsidered for Active Duty Service. However, this is not within the purview of this Board. If reentry is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility. Recruiters can best advise a former Service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers, if appropriate. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incident of misconduct, 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 and to change the narrative reason for his discharge. 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 2 May 2018, 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 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 AR20160013120 1