1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 5 November 2016 b. Date Received: 2 March 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 pertinent part and in effect, his discharge of 2 October 2012, was improper because he received no prior notice. He was discharged prior to his extended ETS date of October 15, 2012. He intended to reenlist. It was also inequitable because of conflicting data. Three of the battle assemblies he attended were not reported. He had no other adverse action during his more than eight years of service. His discharge order from the US Army Reserve is not complete. It does not specify the chapter and section of the authority discharging him. The Puerto Rico Army National Guard with an erroneous perception, questions the vagueness of his discharge orders for reenlistment purposes. He never received any negative counseling documentation. (The applicant detailed the circumstances surrounding the events that led up to his discharge.) An upgrade would provide him a second opportunity. There being no record of any pattern of negative conduct, there were circumstances and obstacles which were beyond his control that complicated his battle assemblies' attendance, such as, limited availability of transportation, instability of residence at the time, lack of family support, financial hardship due to unemployment, the limited contact and unavailable coordination with human resource personnel. An upgrade would facilitate his possible reenlistment with the Puerto Rico Army National Guard. It would benefit the Guard, since he has continued to progress in the civilian sector and earned an Associate Degree with plans to further his academic background. It would be an honor and privilege for him to serve again as he is currently under successful circumstances by having acquired meaningful employment with benefits, stable residence in the past four years, and availability of transportation. He is going forward with his endeavors of serving, again. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 13 June 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 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 2 October 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 10 January 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant accrued at least nine unexcused absences from Army Reserve battle assemblies within a one-year period. Notices sent to him through certified mail have been refused, unclaimed, or otherwise undeliverable. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: Responses acknowledging receipt of notification and election of rights were incomplete (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 30 August 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (The six-month suspended discharge approve on 27 March 2012 was revoked because the applicant failed to report for duties on 4-5 February 2012, 23-25 March 2012, and 14-15 April 2012.) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 16 April 2004 / Continued 8-year MSO with USAR with 6- month extension of enlistment on 11 April 2012, a total of 8 years, 6 months (a new ETS date of 15 October 2012) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 29 / GED / 95 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92G10, Food Service Operations Specialist / 8 years, 5 months, 17 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG (16 April 2004 to 27 February 2006) / NA IADT (28 February 2006 to 13 July 2006) / UNC ARNG (14 July 2006 to 15 April 2010) / HD USAR Control Grp (16 April 2010 - Service Continued) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / None f. Awards and Decorations: ARCAM-2; NDSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Negative counseling statement for failing to report to scheduled unit training Battle Assembly; being identified as having accrued over nine unexcused absences with a one-year period; An Affidavit of Service by Mail, dated 12 February 2012, indicates a DA Form 4856 was mailed on 13 December 2011, to the applicant's last known address in Puerto Rico, provided to 340th QM Company, San Antonio, TX, with tracking number and mail receipt 7011 1570 0000 7589 7150. A return receipt shows an "unclaimed" stamp. An Affidavit of Service by Mail, dated 12 February 2012, indicates a notification of separation was mailed on 18 January 2012, to the applicant's last known address in Puerto Rico, provided to 340th QM Company, San Antonio, TX, with tracking number and mail receipt 7011 2970 0000 0149 6030. A return receipt shows an "attempted not known" stamp. DA Form 4846 (Oath of Extension of Enlistment), dated 11 April 2012, indicates the applicant extended his enlistment of 16 April 2004, by six months (a USAR MSO of 8 years was extended to 8 years, 6 months), which gave him a new ETS date of 15 October 2012. An Affidavit of Service by Mail, dated 7 June 2012, indicates "Revocation of Suspended Discharge" was mailed on 4 June 2012, to the applicant's last known address in Puerto Rico, provided to 340th QM Company, San Antonio, TX, with tracking number and mail receipt 7011 2970 0000 0150 9402. Memorandum, dated 20 September 2012, shows the applicant's award of Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal (ARCAM) was adjusted to read the first award for the period of 7 June 2006 to 6 June 2009, and the second award for the period of 7 June 2009 to 6 June 2012. Discharge Orders, dated 25 September 2012 Email correspondence, dated 14 March 2017, indicates that the unsatisfactory participation discharge proceedings on the applicant could not be located, but that records showed "he was actively participating as a recovery during this time," as he "was allowed to extend his enlistment on 11 April 2012 within [four] days of his initial ETS (15 April 2012)," which "brought his new ETS to 15 October 2012," and his "discharge was effective 2 October 2012." Email correspondence, dated 4 April 2017, indicates the applicant responded that he never received any documents relating to discharge proceedings, except for his discharge orders. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: NIF / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; NGB Form 22, dated 15 April 2010, with discharge orders and Honorable Discharge certificate; DD Form 214, dated 13 July 2006; discharge orders; email correspondence, dated 6 September 2011, 17 November 2011, 20 October 2011, 13 April 2012, 24 September 2012; 24 October 2012; and 18 January 2012; reassignment orders, dated 17 August 2010; 45 LESs, dated 13 October 2010, 19 November 2010, 17 December 2010, 9 February 2011, 3 June 2011, 19 December 2011, 15 February 2012, 17 February 2012, 15 March 2012, 6 June 2012, 27 June 2012, 1 September 2010, 15 September 2010, 6 October 2010, 13 October 2010, 19 November 2010, 17 December 2010, 21 December 2010, 9 February 2011, 29 April 2011, 1 June 2011, 3 June 2011, 1 August 2011, 1 September 2011, 30 September 2011, 1 November 2011, 8 November 2011, 15 November 2011, 23 November 2011, 19 December 2011, 15 February 2012, 1 February 2012, 17 February 2012, 15 March 2012, 11 April 2012, 1 May 2012, 4 May 2012, 15 May 2012, 6 June 2012, 27 June 2012, 12 September 2012 x 2, 12 October 2012, 1 November 2012, and 5 November 2012; and Associate Degree certificate, dated May 2014. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, in effect, since his discharge, he continued to progress in the civilian sector and earned an Associate Degree with plans to further his academic background. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 135-178 sets forth the policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the U.S. Army while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons. The separation policies throughout the different Chapters in this regulation promote the readiness of the Army by providing an orderly means to judge the suitability of persons to serve on the basis of their conduct and their ability to meet required standards of duty performance and discipline. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, and convictions by civil authorities. Further, chapter 13 provides in pertinent part, that individuals can be separated for being an unsatisfactory participant. Army Regulation 135-91 states that a member is an unsatisfactory participant when nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills acrue during a 1 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. The characterization is based upon the quality of the Soldier's service, including the reason for separation and determined in accordance with standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty as found in the UCMJ, Army regulations, and the time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. The reasons for separation, including the specific circumstances that form the basis for the discharge are considered on the issue of characterization. Possible characterizations of service include an honorable, general, under honorable conditions, under other than honorable conditions, or uncharacterized if the Soldier is in entry-level status. However, the permissible range of characterization varies based on the reason for separation. 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, 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 contends his discharge was improper because he never received any prior notice about his imminent discharge. However, the record shows his command attempted to contact the applicant on several occasions and mailed the discharge notification to his last known address via certified mail. Army Regulation 135-178, in pertinent part, stipulates that a Soldier is subject to discharge for unsatisfactory participation when it is determined the Soldier is unqualified for further military service because the Soldier is an unsatisfactory participant as prescribed in Chapter 4, AR 135-91 and attempts to have the Soldier respond or comply with orders or correspondence have resulted in the Soldier's refusal to comply with such orders or correspondence; or a notice sent by certified mail was refused, unclaimed, or otherwise undeliverable; or verification that the Soldier failed to notify the command of a change of address and reasonable attempts to contact the Soldier have failed. The applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because he was discharged prior to his extended ETS date when he intended to reenlist, and that there is also conflicting data because three of the battle assemblies he attended were not reported. 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 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 sufficient evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. The applicant contends his discharge order from the US Army Reserve is not complete as it does not specify the chapter and section of the authority discharging him. However, for a discharge from the Reserve component, separation orders dictate the discharge; therefore, there is no DD Form 214, unless the applicant is discharged from an active duty assignment. In the applicant's case, with discharge orders, there is no provision for a narrative reason for his discharge, except the discharge authority is AR 135-178. Thus Soldiers separating from an inactive duty status from US Army Reserve do not receive a DD Form 214. The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service and an upgrade would provide him that opportunity; however, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of reenlisting. 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. The applicant contends circumstances and obstacles which were beyond his control complicated his battle assemblies' attendance. However, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is insufficient evidence in the record that shows he sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. In consideration of the applicant's post-service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to any incidents that led to his discharge, the Board can find that his complete period of service and accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. 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 13 June 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 a 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 / 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 AR20170003080 1