1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 11 May 2017 b. Date Received: 18 May 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 he was in the Army for three years, until he was the subject of a Summary Court-Martial in January 2013. Until that time he had served his country honorably. In fact, all he had ever received was on negative counseling up to that point and that was for turning up to a recall formation on a Saturday while intoxicated (his mistake). He contends he had been deployed to Iraq for one year and was an infantryman and loved what he did. He was strongly considering reenlisting until he was court martialed. He believes an injustice occurred in his case and that the chain of command for whatever reason elected to discipline him for suspected offences that they believed he was involved in. Why they did this he had his own beliefs but what they did and how they did it certainly was not in the best interests of himself and his fellow Soldiers he was serving with. He contends the witness the prosecuting primarily relied on (SGT I) lied to the investigator about him admitting to the crime. Under oath, at his Summary Court- Martial, he stated " The Applicant never admitted to him that he had committed the assault," he believes that the chain of command was out to get him and justice could only be served by him being found guilty of something; the CID declined to investigate this assault for lack of evidence; there was no physical evidence that an assault had occurred nor were there any witnesses to include his roommate who was sleeping in the room; and the alleged other assailant SPC S was not charged, and was allowed to ETS and receive an honorable discharge. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review in the service record, AHLTA, and JLV, the applicant was diagnosed with the behavioral health conditions of Major Depressive Disorder, PTSD due to combat and Generalized Anxiety Disorder. However, due to the nature of the behavioral health conditions, they do not mitigate the offenses of assault, conspiracy or unlawfully entering a room. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 19 October 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 1 February 2013 c. Separation Facts: (Facts based on partial documents submitted by the applicant and in his military records) (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: unlawfully striking Specialist X on the head and body with his fists and feet on 21 July 2012; Conspired with Specialist X., to assault Specialist Z.D. on 21 July 2012; Unlawfully enter a room, the property of Specialist Z.D., with intent to commit a criminal offense, to wit: assault Specialist X. on 21 July 2012; and Unlawfully entered the room of Specialist Z.D., and that said conduct was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces and was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces on 21 July 2012. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 28 January 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 October 2009 / 3 years, 18 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 99 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 3 years, 4 months, 1 day d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA, Hawaii / Iraq (3 July 2010 to 2 July 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, bibliography to include (self-authored statement; timeline of events; letters of support; partial Court-Martial documents; documents from his separation packet; inquiry findings; and enlisted record brief (ERB)). 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 14-12c states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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 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. 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 on Active Duty. The applicant seeks relief contending that he was in the Army for three years, until he was the subject of a Summary Court-Martial in January 2013. Until that time he had served his country honorably. In fact, all he had ever received was on negative counseling up to that point and that was for turning up to a recall formation on a Saturday while intoxicated (his mistake). He contends he had been deployed to Iraq for one year and was an infantryman and loved what he did. He was strongly considering reenlisting until he was court martialed. He believes an injustice occurred in his case and that the chain of command for whatever reason elected to discipline him for suspected offences that they believed he was involved in. Why they did this he had his own beliefs but what they did and how they did it certainly was not in the best interests of himself and his fellow Soldiers he was serving with. He contends the witness the prosecuting primarily relied on (SGT I) lied to the investigator about him admitting to the crime. Under oath, at his Summary Court-Martial, he stated " The Applicant never admitted to him that he had committed the assault," he believes that the chain of command was out to get him and justice could only be served by him being found guilty of something; the CID declined to investigate this assault for lack of evidence; there was no physical evidence that an assault had occurred nor were there any witnesses to include his roommate who was sleeping in the room; and the alleged other assailant SPC S was not charged, and was allowed to ETS and receive an honorable discharge. The applicant's contentions 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 he was 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 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. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official 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 19 October 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 AR20170008518 4