1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 29 November 2016 b. Date Received: 29 November 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a change to his narrative reason for separation. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he was not afforded due process and fairness at the time of his discharge. The applicant contends that although the chain of command followed protocol, they did not do so in a timely manner. The applicant alleges that it took more than 30 days, instead of the five working days, to receive a response from the Article 15 appeal authority. The applicant further states that his chapter packet was approved within two working days, rather than the ten it typically takes, leaving very little time to recant his plea bargain and request for a formal hearing. The applicant contends that the Rear Detachment Commander that initiated the legal actions did not have UCMJ authority over him, as he was not under his command at the time of the alleged incident or when the chapter process was initiated. The applicant requests that he be reinstated on Active Duty with no break in service. The record indicates the applicant had a prior records review in March 2014. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, there was insufficient evidence to determine if there was a nexus between a behavioral health or medical condition and the misconduct which led to the applicant's separation from the Army. A review of electronic medical records revealed diagnoses for an Adjustment Disorder, an Anxiety Disorder, Marital/Partner Relational Problem, and Paranoid Personality Disorder. The diagnosis of Paranoid Personality Disorder was given in 2011, shortly after PCSing to Alaska, and is most significant due to the applicant displaying delusions, bizarre behaviors, paranoid and disorganized thoughts, and issues of distrust and suspiciousness (towards his wife, Command, and medical providers). Delusions and paranoia seemed to persist from May 2011 to March 2012. During this time, the applicant was psychiatrically hospitalized twice, refused psychiatric medications, and rescinded a release of medical information authorizing medical providers to contact off-post treatment providers. Despite extensive treatment received, the applicant minimized psychiatric symptoms, had a lack of insight, and blamed others for problems leading to an early separation from the Army. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 8 May 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 10 January 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 31 July 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: wrongfully assaulted his spouse by slapping her; derelict in the performance of his duties (1 November 2011 to 3 May 2012); failed to report on divers occasions; and, disobeyed a lawful order given by his commander to pay child support. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 1 August 2012 and 2 October 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Unconditionally Waived, 2 October 2012 (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 4 October 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 22 March 2011 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 30 / HS Graduate / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 42A30, Human Resources Specialist / 16 years, 2 months, 15 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 26 October 1996 to 30 July 2002 / NA RA, 31 July 2002 to 9 June 2005 / HD RA, 10 June 2005 to 10 September 2008 / HD RA, 11 September 2008 to 21 March 2011 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: AK, SWA / Iraq (17 March 2010 to 26 October 2010), Kuwait (15 January 2005 to 3 December 2005 and 18 January 2003 to 31 July 2003) f. Awards and Decorations: MSM, ARCOM-4, AAM, ARCAM, AGCM-2, NDSM, ICM- 2CS, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR-3, ASR, OSR, MUC g. Performance Ratings: 27 June 2010 thru 22 April 2011, Marginal 23 April 2011 to 22 April 2012, Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 29 July 2011, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation for simple assault-consummated by a battery. FG Article 15, dated 1 June 2012, for being derelict in the performance of his duties (3 May 2012) and unlawfully assaulting his wife (14 June 2011). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-5, forfeiture of $1,497 per month for two months (suspended), and 30 days of extra duty and restriction. Memorandum for Letter of Intent, dated 1 May 2012, reflects the applicant was counseled for his Chapter 14-12b process and dereliction of duty. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 10 May 2012, reflects the applicant's medical records indicates a behavioral health diagnosis that would not impact his capacity to under the separation process and was cleared to proceed with separation under Chapter 14-12c. The applicant received numerous negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and performance counseling. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; DD Form 214 and discharge orders; Request for Preparation of a Legal Action, with FG Article 15, dated 1 June 2012; reassignment orders, dated 10 July 2012; separation decision/proceedings/board notification/acknowledgment memoranda; ERB, dated 6 November 2011; applicant's requests for conditional waiver, dated 2 October 2012 and 1 August 2012; applicant's request for retention, dated 6 August 2012; unit commander's letter of intent, dated 23 May 2012; and applicant's DA photo. 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 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. 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 "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, Pattern of Misconduct. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKA" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. Secretary of Defense Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments (Subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, dated September 3, 2014), provided guidance to help ensure consistency across the military services in consideration of PTSD relevant to Service Members' discharges. "Liberal consideration will be given in petitions for changes in characterization of service to service treatment record entries which document one of more symptoms which meet the diagnostic criteria of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or related conditions. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations which document PTSD or PTSD-related conditions connected to military services. In cases where Service Records or any document from the period of service substantiated the existence of one or more symptoms of what is now recognized as PTSD or PTSD-related condition during the time of service, liberal consideration will be given to finding that PTSD existed at the time of service. Liberal consideration will also be given in cases where civilian providers confer diagnoses of PTSD or PTSD-related conditions, when case records contain narratives that support symptomatology at the time of service, or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that PTSD or a PTSD-related disorder existed at the time of discharge which might have mitigated the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. This guidance in not applicable to cases involving pre- existing conditions which are determined not to have been incurred or aggravated while in military service." 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a change to his narrative reason for separation. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms 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's contentions regarding not being afforded due process and the Rear Detachment Commander not having UCMJ authority over him were noted. 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 his contentions. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or sufficient evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. Furthermore, 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 requests to be reinstated on Active Duty, with no break in service. However, the Army Discharge Review Board may only change the characterization or reason for discharge. If an applicant believes there is an error or injustice in his discharge, he may make an application to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, using DD Form 149, which can be obtained online or from a Veterans Service Organization. The applicant was separated under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Pattern of Misconduct," and the separation code is "JKA." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation as approved by the separation authority, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Additionally, based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3. There are no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or to the RE code. An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist. If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. 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. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted no additional documents. b. The applicant presented no additional contentions. c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): Nonbe. 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 8 May 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 11. 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 AR20160018355 2