1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 2 November 2016 b. Date Received: 7 November 2016 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, what is reflected on his "Summarized Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UMCJ," is an improper reflection on his service record and the service he provided to the country. He states, he was punished for his misconduct and he complied with the provisions of his suspended punishment, yet he was discharged for the same punishment. He believes his discharge was inequitable because there were no incidents in his record prior to or following his misconduct. He does not believe the two incidents justify a pattern of misconduct that would warrant a removal from the military. He states, the fact that he was released from the military for failing to be at his appointed place of duty on time on two occasions, is far beyond a valid reason to discharge a member of the United States Army. After serving and completing his initial enlistment honorably, which included a combat tour, awards and training, he strongly believes this should be considered by the Board when considering his request for an upgrade. He believes his discharge from the military should be one of honorable service because he is a veteran of two war campaigns and because of his dedication that he proudly expressed as a Soldier. Additionally, the Board should consider his contributions he has continued to make towards his life after being discharged from the military. While in the Army, he attended college classes and he continued to pursue a degree after his discharge. He recently graduated from the Miami Dade Police Academy, where maintained a 90 percent grade point average and he was recognized as being the most physically fit cadet while attending the academy. He continues to be an upstanding civilian with no infractions of the law and he is an active member helping serve his community. He believes his post-service accomplishments should merit an upgrade because even after being released from the military, he continued to strive for success and for his friends, family and fellow community members. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 31 January 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 1 April 2013 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 Enlistment: 15 July 2011 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 106 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 92A2P 2B, Logistics Automation Specialist / 6 years, 9 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 23 March 2007 - 4 June 2008 / HD RA, 5 June 2008 - 14 July 2011 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (3 October 2009 - 27 September 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-2CS, ARCOM, AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: 1 July 2011 - 1 November 2011 / Fully Capable 2 November 2011 - 1 November 2012 / Fully Capable 2 November 2012 - 1 April 2013 / Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 28 August 2012, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on two occasions (20 and 30 July 2012). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4 (suspended); forfeiture of $1,133 pay; and, an oral reprimand. 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: He states, he is pursuing his degree; has graduated from a Police Academy; and, he volunteers in his community. 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 14-12b addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant's available record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. However, the applicant's record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, by reason of Pattern of Misconduct, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant would have been protected throughout the separation process. The applicant's contentions about his misconduct did not warrant his discharge 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 and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. The applicant contends the event that caused his discharge from the Army were an isolated incidents. Although isolated incidents, the discrediting entries constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends that he had good service which included a combat tour. 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 Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the characterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. They all recognize his good conduct either while on active duty or after leaving the Army; 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 31 January 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 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 AR20160018281 5