1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 21 February 2015 b. Date Received: 7 February 2017 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 find a good job and afford adequate counseling/medication in which he may or may not need. He contends he takes full responsibility for his actions as in how he handled himself upon returning from Iraq and then having to attend the trial of a man who abuse him. Although somewhat stressful, it was definitely not how he was trained. However, once he had been reprimanded for his actions, his NCO's were not supportive of his needs as far as his counseling appointments or separation classes were concerned. Also upon his loss of rank, he was treated differently which he understands that his bad decisions caused his fellow Soldiers to lose respect for him, but that only aided the feeling that taking the Chapter 10 was his only option and he also felt that he was being forced into making the worst decision that he had ever made. Basically, he believes that the officers and NCO's involved rushed him out of the system rather than taking time to help him. In so much as to even record his CIB and ARCOM onto the awards section of his DD form 214 (which he informed them of at the time). Upon returning from Iraq he was given Spurs for going to war with his country and on the certificate it said that he would always be known as a cavalry man, but after making one mistake, he was separated from the Army and loss all of his benefits including his GI Bill benefits. Even after 10 years he still have thoughts of being in a combat zone. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, case files, AHLTA and JLV were reviewed. AHLTA contains no content regarding applicant. JLV contains no content regarding applicant. Due to insufficient information, no statement regarding mitigation can be made at this time. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 1 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 13 July 2004 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 9 June 2004 (2) Basis for Separation: The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458, Charge Sheet which indicates on 9 June 2004, the applicant was charged with the following offenses: Charge I, Violation of the UCMJ, Article 112a Specification 1: wrongfully using marijuana between 19 January 2004 and 18 February 2004 Specification 2: wrongfully using cocaine between 15 February 2004 and 18 February 2004 Specification 3: wrongfully using amphetamines between 17 February 2004 and 18 February 2004, and Specification 4: wrongfully possessing 0.10 grams of marijuana on 2 January 2004 Charge II, Violation of the UCMJ, Article 134 Having been restricted to the limits of Battalion Area, by a person authorized to do so, did, at or near Fort Stewart, GA, on 5 June 2004, broke said restriction (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 17 June 2004 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 23 June 2004 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 21 August 2002 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 107 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 19D10, Cavalry Scout / 1 year, 10 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (22 January 2003 to 26 August 2003) f. Awards and Decorations: PUCA, NDSM, ASR, GWOTSM g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CID Reports, dated 6 January 2004 and 30 January 2004, which indicates the applicant was a subject of investigation for the wrongful possession of marijuana. Electronic copy of the DD Form 2624, dated 26 February 2004, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC during an Probable Cause (PO) urinalysis testing conducted on 18 February 2004. Mental Status Evaluation, dated 18 February 2004, shows that the applicant had the mental capacity to understand participate in the proceedings, was mentally responsible, and met the retention requirements of Chapter 3, AR 40-501. Counseling statement in reference to the applicant being restricted to the Squadron Area. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 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 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Army policy states that although an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 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 evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. His record documents no acts of significant achievement or valor and did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general (under honorable conditions) discharge by the separation authority at the time of discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending that he takes full responsibility for his actions as in how he handled himself upon returning from Iraq and then having to attend the trial of a man who abuse him. Although somewhat stressful, was definitely not how he was trained. However, once he had been reprimanded for his actions, his NCO's were not supportive of his needs as far as his counseling appointments or separation classes were concerned. Also upon his loss of rank, he was treated differently which he understands that his bad decisions caused his fellow Soldiers to lose respect for him, but that only aided the feeling that taking the Chapter 10 was his only option and he also felt that he was being forced into making the worst decision that he had ever made. Basically, he believes that the officers and NCO's involved rushed him out of the system rather than taking time to help him. In so much as to even record his CIB and ARCOM onto the awards section of hid DD form 214 (which he informed them of at the time). Upon returning from Iraq he was given Spurs for going to war with his country and on the certificate it said that he would always be known as a cavalry man, but after making one mistake, he was separated from the Army and loss all of his benefits including his GI Bill benefits. Even after 10 years he still have thoughts of being in a combat zone. The applicant's contention 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 the officers and NCO's involved in his separation rushed him out of the system rather than taking time to help him. The evidence of record shows the applicant voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial and that he understood that he could request this discharge because of the charges that were preferred against him. 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. 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 expressed his desire for an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to find a good job and afford adequate counseling/medication in which he may or may not need. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Further, 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. 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 1 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 AR20170003385 1