1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 30 July 2017 b. Date Received: 6 February 2017 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge is inequitable because his unit did not process his request for reassignment due to relocation as required by Army Regulation. He moved to continue his civilian education. Knowing that this move would impact his ability to serve with his current unit, he notified his chain of command, specifically his squad leader, platoon sergeant, platoon commander, and unit administrator at least a month prior to the move. He believes his characterization of service is completely unbefitting of his character. To have the same discharge as some of his former fellow Soldiers who were kicked out due to not being able to pass drug tests, brings him a terrible sense of shame. He states, to this day, he has never used drugs and he never plans to. His discharge is not a proper reflection of his time in the military. The supporting documentation he provides with his applicant will reflect that he was seen as an exemplary Soldier. He had been put in leadership positions regularly by those above him because of his clear embodiment of the Army Values. He hopes that this situation can be rectified and that the Board will see the scenario from his perspective and elect to properly reflect his time in service with a discharge befitting of his character and his actions during his service. Since his discharge, he has taken advantage of every opportunity to continue improving his life and towards pursuing his goals. He began taking classes and earned his Bachelor's in Psychology with a double minor in Trauma Counseling and Christian Counseling, graduating Magna Cum Laude with a 3.8 GPA. Later, he earned his Master of Science in Professional Counseling degree, graduating with a 3.77 GPA. He completed a 200 hour internship at a non- profit vocational rehabilitation provider where his work ethic, discipline and eagerness to do develop his skills in the world of psychology and mental health impressed them to such a degree that they hired him. Additionally, he has completed over 700 hours of unpaid practicum and internship work at an Intensive Outpatient Counseling Agency, where he assisted in treating various mental disorders. He currently works as a Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor with the State of Ohio's Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation. He was recently promoted to a special project in the agency based largely on the fact that upper management saw him as someone who had an exceptional teamwork demeanor and a unique form of humble leadership. He attributes his skills in this area to his time in the Army. He also manages his own business along with his wife. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 28 May 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: Unsatisfactory Participation / AR 135- 178 / Chapter 13 / NIF / NIF / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 2 May 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: On 24 February 2011, the applicant's commander mailed him the notification via certified mail, with a suspense of 30 days to acknowledge the notice and his rights. (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: His unexcused absence from 9 or more UTAs or his absence from Extended Combat Training as defined by AR 135-91, chapter 4. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: The applicant failed to respond to the notification of separation, thereby waiving his right to counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant failed to respond to the notification of separation, thereby waiving his right to an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 25 April 2011 (Orders 11-115- 00232) / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 25 April 2008 / 8 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / Some College / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 21W10, Carpentry and Masonry Specialist / 3 years, 7 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NIF g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Letter of Instructions - Unexcused Absence, dated 8 December 2010, reflects the applicant was absent from a scheduled unit training assembly (UTA) or a multiple unit training assembly (MUTA) for the following periods: 4 December 2010 (MUTA 1 and 2) 5 December 2010 (MUTA 1 and 2) Affidavit of Service by Mail, reflects the Letter of Instructions-Unexcused Absence, dated 8 December 2010, was mailed to the applicant via certified mail on 8 December 2010. Letter of Instructions - Unexcused Absence, dated 11 January 2011, reflects the applicant was absent from a scheduled unit training assembly (UTA) or a multiple unit training assembly (MUTA) for the following periods: 8 January 2011 (MUTA 1 and 2) 9 January 2011 (MUTA 1 and 2) Affidavit of Service by Mail, reflects the Letter of Instructions-Unexcused Absence, dated 11 January 2011, was mailed to the applicant via certified mail on 12 January 2011. Letter of Instructions - Unexcused Absence, dated 7 February 2011, reflects the applicant was absent from a scheduled unit training assembly (UTA) or a multiple unit training assembly (MUTA) for the following periods: 5 February 2011 (MUTA 1 and 2) 6 February 2011 (MUTA 1 and 2) Affidavit of Service by Mail, reflects the Letter of Instructions-Unexcused Absence, dated 7 February 2011, was mailed to the applicant via certified mail on 8 February 2011. Affidavit of Service by Mail, reflects the Notification of Separation Proceeding, dated 24 February 2011, was mailed to the applicant via certified mail on 24 February 2011. Letter of Instructions - Unexcused Absence, dated 22 March 2011, reflects the applicant was absent from a scheduled unit training assembly (UTA) or a multiple unit training assembly (MUTA) for the following periods: 18 March 2011 (MUTA 1 and 2) 19 March 2011 (MUTA 1 and 2) 20 March 2011 (MUTA 1 and 2) Affidavit of Service by Mail, reflects the Letter of Instructions-Unexcused Absence, dated 22 March 2011, was mailed to the applicant via certified mail on 23 March 2011. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for failing to attend training. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: As described in previous paragraph 4h. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; two letters of support; copies of his Developmental Counseling's; and, two military certificates. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: He states, he earned his Bachelor's Degree; earned his Master's Degree; completed two internships; obtained employment; and, manages his own business. 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 accrue 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. Army policy states 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant's available 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 and diminished the quality of his service by his refusal to participate in unit drills. 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. The record shows the unit commander attempted to contact the applicant and mailed the discharge packet to his last known address via certified mail. Further, the evidence of record reflects the applicant had failed to submit a reply. In accordance to AR 135-178, paragraph 3- 12, this failure to submit a reply within 30 days of receipt of the notice constitutes a waiver of the right to respond. The applicant requests a narrative reason change. However, when service members are discharged from the U.S. Army Reserve, orders are published indicating the effective date and characterization of the discharge. Narrative reasons are not included in the order. Insomuch as the applicant's discharge order does include a narrative reason, there is no basis to change the discharge order. He contends his unit knew he had moved and did not process his request to transfer to another unit as required by the governing regulations, was carefully considered. However, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. Further, 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 Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. The applicant contends that he received the same characterization of service of Soldiers who had committed drug offenses, which is not reflective of his service. However, the method in which another Soldier's case was handled is not relevant to the applicant's case. Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance and his good conduct while in the Army. Both letters address the disorganization in the applicant's unit at the time of his discharge. However, they did not provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 28 May 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 AR20170003389 1