1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 18 November 2016 b. Date Received: 25 November 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that he would like an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to have a chance to further his education or return to service. The applicant contends an injustice has occurred with regard to the circumstances and characterization of his Active duty service. He was accused of a crime by the State of Georgia (accomplice to murder and tampering with evidence). The accomplice to murder charge was dismissed. He pled guilty to tampering with evidence and was officially released from probation on 26 August 2016. The co-defendant in this case Mr. X., was acquitted of the murder charge and tampering with evidence charge. The applicant contends he had no knowledge of Mr. X, placing a gun in his POV, nor did he know that he had allegedly committed the crime of murder. He pled guilty because the gun was in fact in his car; but he did not have knowledge that the gun was in his car, nor could he prove that he did not have knowledge, therefore his attorney told him to plead guilty. He did not want to plead guilty to something that he did not do but basically had no choice. He believes an injustice has occurred because the Army chose to separate him with an under other than honorable conditions discharge and a narrative reason of misconduct (serious offense). He feels he was vindicated because the State of Georgia threw out the accomplice to murder charge and he pled guilty to the tampering with evidence charge just to get it over with. He contends up until the point of his legal problems in the Army he was a top performer; his evaluations demonstrated that he was the platoon guide in basic training and AIT, was promoted the 1st day he arrived at his unit in Korea to E-2, received a waiver for promotions to E-3 shortly after that, and was promoted to E-4 after about 19 months of service. He worked hard and was recognized by his command for his abilities and performance. He got caught up in a situation that was not of his making and he has paid the price for it; therefore, he is requesting an equitable resolution to his case. He realizes the Army could not retain him on Active duty because of the charges; however, on the other hand he does not think it is fair to stigmatize him for the rest of his life for something that he did not do. In a record review hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, block 27 contains an erroneous entry. The Board directed the following administrative correction and reissue of the applicant's DD Form 214, as approved by the separation authority: Block 27, reentry code changed to 3. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 3 August 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 7 June 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: being involved in the shooting death of R.P. on 6 October 2010, in Hinesville, Georgia. Specifically, after the shooting he drove the getaway car. In addition, he attempted to conceal the murder weapon from law enforcement. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 9 June 2011, the applicant requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation board. On 24 June 2011, the applicant case was referred to a hearing before the Administrative Separation Board. On 30 June 2011, the applicant voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon his receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than under honorable condition otherwise referred to as general (under honorable conditions). On 22 July 2011, the applicant's conditional waiver was disapproved. On 25 July 2011, the applicant submitted a second request for a conditional waiver under the conditions that UCMJ action not be taken against him for his recent misconduct in exchange for him being separated under other than honorable conditions. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 29 July 2011 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 4 January 2008 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / GED / 115 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 31B10, Military Police / 3 years, 7 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; personal statement; copy of OMPF; copy of court records; and DD Form 214. 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 14-12c states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests and upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). 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 contends an injustice has occurred with regard to the circumstances and characterization of his Active duty service. He was accused of a crime by the State of Georgia (accomplice to murder and tampering with evidence). The accomplice to murder charge was dismissed. He pleaded guilty to tampering with evidence and was officially released from probation on 26 August 2016. The co-defendant in this case S.J., was acquitted of the murder charge and tampering with evidence charge. The applicant contends he had no knowledge of Mr. X, placing a gun in his POV, nor did he know that he had allegedly committed the crime of murder. He pleaded guilty because the gun was in fact in his car; but he did not have knowledge that the gun was in his car, nor could he prove that he did not have knowledge, therefore his attorney told him to plead guilty. He did not want to plead guilty to something that he did not do but basically had no choice. He believes an injustice has occurred because the Army chose to separate him with an under other than honorable conditions discharge and a narrative reason of misconduct (serious offense). He feels he was vindicated because the State of Georgia threw out the accomplice to murder charge and he pleaded guilty to the tampering with evidence charge just to get it over with. He got caught up in a situation that was not of his making and he has paid the price for it; therefore, he is requesting an equitable resolution to his case. He realizes the Army could not retain him on Active duty because of the charges; however, on the other hand he does not think it is fair to stigmatize him for the rest of his life for something that he did not do. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, at the time of discharge the applicant was pending charges for being involved in the shooting death of R.P. on 6 October 2010, in Hinesville, Georgia. Specifically, after the shooting he drove the getaway car. In addition, he attempted to conceal the murder weapon from law enforcement. However, Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that a Soldier may be separated when initially convicted by civil authorities, or when action is taken that is tantamount to a finding of guilty, if a punitive discharge authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts Martial without regard to suspension or probation. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that his discharge was inequitable. The applicant's statements alone does 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. He contends up until the point of his legal problems in the Army he was top performer; his evaluations demonstrated that he was the platoon guide in basic training and AIT, was promoted the 1st day he arrived at his unit in Korea to E-2, received a waiver for promotions to E-3 shortly after that, and was promoted to E-4 after about 19 months of service. He worked hard and was recognized by his command for his abilities and performance. 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 and the applicant is to be commended on his accomplishments. However, it appears this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions) at the time of discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that he would like an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to have a chance to further his education or return to service. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. It should be noted; the service record indicates that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 27, reentry code as 4. In accordance with AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, Soldiers discharged by reason of misconduct (serious offense), will be assigned an SPD Code of JKQ and an RE Code of 3. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table the applicant is appropriately assigned an RE code of 3. There are no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or to further change 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 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 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 record review hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, block 27 contains an erroneous entry. The Board directed the following administrative correction and reissue of the applicant's DD Form 214, as approved by the separation authority: Block 27, reentry code changed to 3. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes 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 to SPD code / Change RE code to 3 f. Restore (Restoration of) Grade 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 AR20160019661 1