1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 17 March 2017 b. Date Received: 23 March 2017 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant, through counsel, requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a narrative reason change; and, if it is within the Board's discretion, a recommendation to DFAS to authorize payment for the 14-month remainder of his term of service due to unjustly losing a career and service credit for at least two additional months. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the administrative adverse actions, which prevented among other things, a well-earned promotion to 1LT, a pay increase, a GOMOR, separation with less-than-honorable and a reduction of education benefits, were a very heavy-handed, incorrect, and unjust. This response to end a career over what would fairly be described as an anomaly unintended incident, for which the applicant was the victim of a crime, for which the local authorities dismissed charges Further, the applicant was never given an opportunity to demonstrate any rehabilitation potential, for which the applicant clearly demonstrated in the remaining time in service. In practice, individuals involved in far worse misconduct are often given opportunities to rehabilitate, or waivers to enter the service. Counsel states, the applicant provided significant exculpatory evidence, mitigation, and extenuation. The separation action violated AR 600-8-24 chapters 4 and 1 and was unjust on the surface, regardless of his personal and professional merit. It was an arbitrary separation and harsh characterization totally unsupported by the facts, law, regulation, and/or fairness and in direct conflict with the regulation with regard to separation and also regarding characterization. The applicant's JAG lawyer did nothing to fight this injustice or secure a better outcome in any material fashion. Further, there are not very many civilian attorneys in Hawaii who practice military legal defense, thereby effectively limiting the options. Factoring in the applicant's merit and the totality of the situation, the applicant was otherwise a significant Army asset who should not have had a career stalled or ended over this anomaly. The applicant graduated Cum Laude from a civilian college with a degree in Civil Engineering, was the Engineer BOLC Distinguished Honor Graduate, APFT scores were consistently above 270, expert weapon qualification, all of the rating officers and several senior unit officers wrote extremely favorable reviews or statements in support of fully knowing the pending administrative issues. Several individuals have noted how much personal time the applicant devoted to improving others and the community. The applicant was and still remains a highly meritorious individual for at minimum the administrative actions the applicant is now requesting. In total, the applicant's discharge for this single incident should have been stopped and was an injustice. Given that the allegations were dismissed, the applicant's separation was a prima fascia violation of AR 600-8-24, particularly 4-4 and 1-22. Counsel states, the Board has the power to correct some of the injustice. The applicant's primary desire is to have the discharge reflect how it should have appeared if the Army had followed the regulations and allowed the applicant to complete the term of service with Honor. Trevor humbly requests this Board take any and all action consistent with correcting this terrible injustice; primarily upgrade the discharge characterization to "Honorable" and provide a discharge code consistent with completion of the term or voluntary separation. Counsel provides a detailed brief of the issues and contentions with the application. After the discharge, the applicant has had trouble finding employment for the first couple months. The applicant found a company that was willing to look past the blemish on the military record and give a chance. The applicant has volunteered for several construction oriented charity groups and has been able to showcase leadership skills and training learned in the Army. The applicant has impressed superior and selected to work in a highly specialized division of the current company. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 1 August 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: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2B / JNC / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 4 May 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 3 October 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2b(10) for misconduct and moral, or professional dereliction. The specific reasons for elimination: acts of misconduct and moral or professional dereliction which resulted in the issuance of a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) dated 13 February 2014, which was filed in his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) in accordance with Army Regulation 600-37, paragraph 3-4b. He was reprimanded for being apprehended for criminal trespassing and terroristic threatening. On 23 October 2014, the applicant voluntarily submitted his conditional Resignation in Lieu of Elimination, which was conditioned upon him being granted an honorable discharge characterization of service. (3) Legal Consultation Date: 23 October 2014 (4) GCMCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 21 November 2014, the GCMCA recommended disapproval of the applicant's request for resignation and recommend that he be involuntarily eliminated from service / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (5) DA Ad Hoc Review Board: 21 March 2015 (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 17 April 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 10 January 2013 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment / Education: 24 / Bachelor's Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O1 / 12A, Engineer General / 2 years, 9 months, 12 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA (enlisted), (23 July 2012 - 9 January 2013) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: 22 June 2013 - 17 September 2014 / Highly Qualified 18 September 2014 - 4 May 2015 / Highly Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Hawaii Armed Service Police report, dated 12 October 2013, reflects the applicant was arrested for Criminal Trespassing 1st Degree and Terroristic Threatening 2nd Degree. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 13 February 2014, for on 12 October 2013, at approximately 0330 hours, he boarded a boat owned by Mr. X without his permission. Mr. X was awakened by the sound of the applicant walking on the deck of his boat. He then observed the applicant sitting in the cockpit of the boat and asked him to exit the boat. Instead of leaving, the applicant became aggressive and rushed at him, causing an altercation. He also threatened his spouse by stating words to the effect of, "stop moving or I'll kill you." The applicant was subsequently arrested by a Honolulu Police Officer. District Court of The First Circuit, State of Hawaii, Terms and Conditions of Deferred Acceptance of Guilty Plea / Deferred Acceptance of Nolo Contendere Plea / Conditional Discharge, dated 11 February 2014, reflects the court case against the applicant was deferred for the period of six months contingent upon the applicant meeting the specified conditions. The applicant was ordered to return to court on 28 July 2014, for proof of compliance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application with an allied legal brief with all listed enclosures. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has obtained employment and volunteers within his community. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interest of national security. A discharge of honorable, general, or under other than honorable conditions characterization of service may be granted. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JNC" as the appropriate code to assign commissioned officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b, unacceptable conduct. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant, through counsel, requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a narrative reason change; and, if it is within the Board's discretion, a recommendation to DFAS to authorize payment for the 14- month remainder of his term of service and service credit for at least two additional months. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms that 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 Army officers. It brought discredit on the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant provided no corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the unacceptable conduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained. Further, the applicant's record contains no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contentions regarding promotion, pay, service credit and the GOMOR were carefully considered. However, the applicant's requested changes do not fall within the purview of this Board. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed. However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, AR 600-8-24 with a honorable conditions discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Unacceptable Conduct," and the separation code is "JNC." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends he was not afforded the opportunity to rehabilitate and his JAG lawyer did nothing to fight this injustice or secure him a better outcome in any material fashion. However, 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 contends the event that caused his discharge from the Army was an isolated incident that the civil charges against him were dismissed before his discharge. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. Governing regulations stipulate there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The evidence of the record reflects the charges against the applicant were deferred contingent upon him meeting the conditions of his plea agreement. Further, the applicant accepted responsibility for his actions in his self-authored statement. The applicant contends that other individuals that committed worse misconduct were not treated the same. However, the method in which another Officer'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 he had good service. 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. The applicant is to be commended for his accomplishments. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow additional educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. 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. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. They all recognize his good performance while in the Army; however, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command and the Army. As such, none of these statements 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 the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 1 August 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 AR20170004126 1