1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 8 September 2016 b. Date Received: 11 October 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge was based on one isolated incident in 40 months of service with no other adverse action. He was accepted to an out-of-state university, and he moved from his place of residence to attend the university. When he left, he was under the belief that he reported his status to his chain of command, RST all He failed to follow-up on his irresponsible action of not filing a leave of absence. He has learned and grown from his mistake-it helped him create his own business. (Note: the applicant, in his self-authored statement listed his accomplishments and the awards he earned during his period of service.) Since his discharge, he has maintained employment with one employer for four years, graduated from Arizona State University, and started his own business and employed 15 personnel. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 3 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: NA / AR 135-178 / NA / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 18 October 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 7 February 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed the reason for his discharge was pursuant to AR 135-178, Chapter 13, for unsatisfactory participation; wherein, he failed to report for AT (Annual Training) as ordered. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: The applicant's election of rights response was incomplete. (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant made no response to his election of rights. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 7 November 2007 / 8 years (USAR) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / 45 years / 113 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 21M10, Firefighter / 4 years, 11 months, 12 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR (7 November 2007 to 18 March 2008) / NA IADT (19 March 2008 to 8 October 2008) / HD USAR (9 October 2008 - Continuous Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Order Number 009067, dated 8 November 2011, ordered the applicant to AT for one duty day, on 9 December 2011, and revocation Order 025471, dated 3 February 3 February 2012. Two Affidavits of Service by Mail, as follows: dated 9 November 2011, for "AT No Show Orders," dated 9 November 2011, and dated 7 February 2012, for notification of separation, dated 7 February 2012. Three Certified Mail Receipts, as follows: (7011 0470 0002 9602 1079), dated 10 March 2012, with incomplete receipt; (7011 0470 0002 9602 0942), illegible date, an incomplete receipt; and (7011 0470 0002 9602 0980), illegible date, an incomplete receipt. Commander's Report, dated 9 February 2012, indicates the applicant was notified pursuant to AR 135-178, paragraph 13-10 of the involuntary separation proceedings for failing to report for duty, given 30 days prior notification, on Order Number 009067 with a report date of 9 December 2011, but he was a "No-show for AT," including record of unsatisfactory participation for the following dates: 14-15 October 2011, 4-5 November 2011, 17-18 September 2011, 6-7 August 2011, and 23-24 July 2011. Counseling statement, dated 9 March 2012, for being a no-show at Annual Training, being an unsatisfactory participant with a total of 20 unexcused absences, and failing to provide a contact information to "FLL and PSG." (Note, the applicant was unavailable for signature.) Discharge Orders, dated 11 October 2012 i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 8 September 2016; NPRC letter, dated 13 April 2016; DD Form 214, dated 8 October 2008; ERB, dated 26 September 2008; DA Form 4187, dated 10 July 2012; discharge Orders, dated 11 October 2012; self-authored statement; and two character reference/supporting statements. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, in effect, since his discharge, he has maintained employment with one employer for four years, graduated from Arizona State University, and started his own business and employed 15 personnel. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation (AR) 135-178 governs procedures covering enlisted personnel management of the Army Reserve. Chapter 13 provides in pertinent part, that individuals can be separated for being an unsatisfactory participant. AR 135-91 states that a member is an unsatisfactory participant when nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills acrue during a one-year period and attempts to have the Soldier respond or comply with orders or correspondence have resulted in-the Soldier's refusal to comply with orders or correspondence; or a notice sent by certified mail was refused, unclaimed, or otherwise undeliverable; or verification that the Soldier has failed to notify the command of a change of address and reasonable attempts to contact the Soldier have failed. Discharge action may be taken when the Soldier cannot be located or is absent in the hands of civil authorities in accordance with the provisions of AR 135-91, paragraph 2-18, and Chapter 3, section IV, of AR 135-178. Characterization of service normally will be under other than honorable conditions, but characterization as general (under honorable conditions) may be warranted under the guidelines in chapter 2, section III, of AR 135-178. For Soldiers who have completed entry level status, characterization of service as honorable is not authorized unless the Soldier's record is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization clearly would be inappropriate. In such cases, separation for unsatisfactory participation with an honorable characterization will be approved by the separation authority (according to paragraph 1-10, AR 135-178). As an exception, service characterized as honorable will be approved when an administrative separation board has recommended such characterization. When characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions is not warranted for a Soldier in entry level status under chapter 2, section III, AR 135-178, the service will be described as uncharacterized. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant's available record of service, and the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The available 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 and diminished the quality of his service by his absences from participating in the annual training and unit drills. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or sufficient evidence that the his service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained in the Army Reserve. The applicant's contentions that his discharge was inequitable was carefully reviewed. 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 any 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 evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. The applicant contends the incident that caused his discharge was the only one in his 40 months of service with no other adverse action. 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 incidents of unsatisfactory participation adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incidents, and his post-service accomplishments, the Board can find that his complete period of service were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. The available 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. 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 the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 3 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 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 AR20160019002 1