1.	Applicant's Name:    

	a.	Application Date:  27 December 2016

	b.	Date Received:  3 January 2017

	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, that his initial discharge came as a result of conflict with DADT regulations, 
and his discharge was turned down because the issue was too "political" at the time even though 
it was clearly broken twice.  He contends the paperwork took almost four months to complete and 
when it arrived the very same morning before the work day began his First Sergeant had him in 
his office to sign another packet for discharge for a pattern of misconduct.  This pattern was based 
on him being late to formation, having lost his Common access Card, and he was counseled with 
punitive measures he was assigned which he had already served.  These three incidents had no 
pattern though, this was an easy way for the chain of command to force him out since they no 
longer wanted him after having tried to get rid of him earlier.

In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 16 March 2018, and by a 4-1 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:  14 May 2010

	c.	Separation Facts:  

		(1)	Date of Notification of Intent to Separate:  28 April 2010

		(2)	Basis for Separation:  The applicant was informed of the following reasons:  for 
misconduct on divers occasions (i.e.); failing to report to his appointed place of duty, losing his 
Common Access Card (CAC), which was a sensitive item; and failing to obey the order of a 
commissioned officer.

		(3)	Recommended Characterization:  General (Under Honorable Conditions)

		(4)	Legal Consultation Date:  Undated document shows the applicant waived his right 
to consult with legal counsel

		(5)	Administrative Separation Board:  NA

		(6)	Separation Decision Date / Characterization:  10 May 2010 / General (Under 
Honorable Conditions)



4.	SERVICE DETAILS:

	a.	Date / Period of Enlistment:  4 October 2008 / 4 years

	b.	Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score:  20 / HS Graduate / 109

	c.	Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service:  E-5 / 35N20, Signals Intelligence 
Analyst / 3 years, 7 months, 20 days

	d.	Prior Service / Characterizations:  RA, 25 September 2006 to 3 October 2008 / HD

	e.	Overseas Service / Combat Service:  SWA / Iraq (29 November 2007 to 30 December 
2008)

	f.	Awards and Decorations:  MUC, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, NOPDR, ASR, OSR, 
CAB 

	g.	Performance Ratings:  1 November 2009 to 14 May 2010, Marginal

	h.	Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record:  CG, Article 15, dated 2 April 2010, for 
disobeying a lawful order/command from a commissioned officer on 18 December 2009 and 8 
January 2010, and failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty 18 March 
2010.  The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $537 pay, and 14 days extra duty and 
restriction.

The applicant received several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct 
and performance.

	i.	Lost Time / Mode of Return:  None

	j.	Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health:  None

5.	APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE:  DD Form 293; 

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.


8.	DISCUSSION OF FACT(S):  The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable 
conditions) discharge to honorable.  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 seeks relief contending, that his initial discharge came as a result of conflict with 
DADT regulations, and his discharge was turned down because the issue was too "political" at 
the time even though it was clearly broken twice.  He contends the paperwork took almost four 
months to complete and when it arrived the very same morning before the work day began his 
First Sergeant had him in his office to sign another packet for discharge for a pattern of 
misconduct.  This pattern was based on him being late to formation, having lost his Common 
access Card, and he was counseled with punitive measures he was assigned which he had 
already served.  These three incidents had no pattern though, this was an easy way for the 
chain of command to force him out since they no longer wanted him after having tried to get rid 
of him earlier.

The applicant's contentions 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 this issue.  
There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the 
contention that his discharge was unjust.  In fact, the applicant's Article 15 and numerous 
negative counseling statements justify a pattern of misconduct.  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 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 records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 16 March 2018, 
and by a 4-1 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.	Change SPD Code to:  							No Change

	f.	Change RE Code 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
AR20170001446
2