1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 29 March 2017 b. Date Received: 4 April 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 service was completely honorable during his period of service. He contends his misconduct was the result of a motor vehicle accident he suffered on 1 August 2010. His vehicle rolled over several times, he was rendered unconscious and was in severe pain; following the accident he was not physically capable of performing as a paratrooper. His unit began to treat him like he had done something wrong and was assigning him additional duty tasks. He felt like he was being mistreated and asked to be sent home. He was told he could get home but he would not like how they did it. That was when he received his discharge. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 13 July 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 5 May 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 14 April 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for continuing to disobey orders and violating lawful general regulations. It was also noted that further attempts of rehabilitation were not advantageous to the unit or the Army and it was unlikely for him to be successful. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 15 April 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 November 2009 / 4 years, 41 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 94 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 11B1P, Infantryman / 1 years, 5 months, 9 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG, Article 15, dated 4 June 2010, for violating a lawful general regulation by wrongfully traveling outside the 100 mile radius without an approved mileage pass on 21 May 2010, and with intent to deceive, made to Specialist J.C.S., an official statement, to wit: "I am in Raleigh, North Carolina with some friends,' which statement was totally false on 21 May 2010. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $337 pay per month for one month (suspended), and 7 days extra duty and restriction. FG, Article 15, dated 1 February 2011, for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 22 January 2011 and 24 January 2011, violating a lawful general regulation, by traveling outside the 100 mile radius of Fort Bragg without an approved mileage pass on 25 January 2011, and while posted as a sentinel, was found sleeping on his post on 24 January 2011. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $723 pay per month for two months, and 45 days extra duty and restriction. Behavioral Health Evaluation, dated 14 February 2011, which shows the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings and was mentally responsible. The applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriated by his command. Several counseling statements for acts of misconduct and performance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL 9 days (27 April 2011 to 5 May 2011) / mode of returned unknown j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 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 that the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of her 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 she should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant seeks relief contending, that his service was completely honorable during his period of service. He contends his misconduct was the result of a motor vehicle accident he suffered on 1 August 2010. His vehicle rolled over several times, he was rendered unconscious and was in severe pain; following the accident he was not physically capable of performing as a paratrooper. His unit began to treat him like he had done something wrong and was assigning him additional duty tasks. He felt like he was being mistreated and asked to be sent home. He was told he could get home but he would not like how they did it. That was when he received his discharge. 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 he was unjustly or unfairly discharged. In fact, the applicant's two Articles 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. Also the applicant's service record does not support the applicant's contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Further, the record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service at the time of 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 13 July 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 AR20170006742 1