1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 5 October 2016 b. Date Received: 11 October 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. However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 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. In addition, the applicant requested a narrative reason change or that the Board revoke, void or dismiss his discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge was in error and or is an injustice. The applicant defers to evidence that he provides with his application. He states an upgrade would prevent manifest injustice in accordance with sited court cases. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 21 February 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: NIF / AR 135-178 / NIF / NIF / NIF / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 16 September 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 1 March 2010 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment / Education: 43 / Bachelor's Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-3 / Chaplain / 13 years, 4 months, 16 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 7 September 2000 - 26 August 2002 / HD (Break in Service) USAR, 20 April 2004 - 7 January 2006 / NA AD, 8 January 2006 - 8 April 2006 / HD USAR, 9 January 2006 - 28 February 2010 / NIF e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: ARCAM-4, NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: 2 June 2010 - 28 February 2011 / Fully Qualified 1 March 2011 - 29 February 2012 / Best Qualified 1 March 2012 - 28 February 2013 / Fully Qualified 1 March 2013 - 28 February 2014 / Do Not Promote 1 March 2014 - 28 February 2015 / Not Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 2 June 2013, for disrespectful conduct toward a senior commissioned officer, for failure to follow the orders of senior commissioned officer, and for misuse of government resources and personnel. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with all allied documents listed in block 8 of the application. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 135-178 sets forth the policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the U.S. Army while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons. The separation policies throughout the different Chapters in this regulation promote the readiness of the Army by providing an orderly means to judge the suitability of persons to serve on the basis of their conduct and their ability to meet required standards of duty performance and discipline. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, and convictions by civil authorities. The characterization is based upon the quality of the Soldier's service, including the reason for separation and determined in accordance with standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty as found in the UCMJ, Army regulations, and the time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. The reasons for separation, including the specific circumstances that form the basis for the discharge are considered on the issue of characterization. Possible characterizations of service include an honorable, general, under honorable conditions, under other than honorable conditions, or uncharacterized if the Soldier is in entry-level status. However, the permissible range of characterization varies based on the reason for separation. 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 Department of Defense Instruction 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. In addition, the applicant requested a narrative reason change or that the Board revoke, void or dismiss his discharge. The applicant's service record is void of his discharge orders from the US Army Reserve. The applicant did provide a copy of a properly constituted discharge Orders D-08- 516140, dated 18 August 2015. Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the type of discharge he received from the U.S. Army Reserve. The orders indicate the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 135-178, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant's contentions that his discharge is an injustice in accordance with cases previously litigated in court, were carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. Moreover, 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 any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity. Further, 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 that his discharge should be revoked, voided or dismissed. However, the applicant's requested change to the DD Form 214 do not fall within the purview of this Board. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. The applicant requests a narrative reason change. However, when service members are discharged from the U.S. Army Reserve, orders are published indicating the effective date and characterization of the discharge. Narrative reasons are not included in the order. Insomuch as the applicant's discharge order does include these elements, there is no basis to change the discharge order. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. However, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. Based on the available record, 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. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 21 February 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. ssue 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 AR20160017893 1