1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 22 March 2017 b. Date Received: 27 March 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant was discharged on the grounds of grand larceny of BAH due to ex-spouse filing for a divorce and forging signature while the applicant was deployed in Iraq. The applicant was proven innocent through a court. The applicant was discharged prior to the civilian court proceedings being completed. The applicant had no involvement in the crimes charged. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review at the time in the service record, the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA), and Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV), notes indicate diagnoses of Depression; Late Effect of Intracranial Injury. The applicant is not service-connected from the VA. In summary, the applicant does not have a BH diagnosis that is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 19 August 2020, 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 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 8 November 2012 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 29 August 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; he committed BAH fraud in the amount of $80,000 between (2 December 2005 to 16 June 2011); he violated a lawful general regulation, by wrongfully failing to provide adequate financial support to his spouse x2 (7 April 2012 and 7 May 2012); he made a false official statement to SFC J., by submitting an altered check as proof of a spousal support payment; and he failed to report to his place of duty x2 (7 May 2012 and 7 June 2012). (3) Recommended Characterization: The applicant's chain of command recommended an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. (4) Legal Consultation Date: 30 August 2012 and 25 September 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions) pursuant to AR 635-200. The unit and intermediate commanders recommend the applicant's conditional waiver be denied. The applicant waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, to include personal appearance before such board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 19 October 2012 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 April 2010 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 years / HS Graduate / 120 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 63H1P, Tracked Vehicle Mechanic / 9 years, 4 months, 7 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 2 July 2003 to 1 May 2007 / HD RA, 2 May 2007 to 2 May 2008 / HD RA, 3 May 2008 to 26 April 2010 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq x2, 18 November 2005 to 5 November 2006 and 26 April 2008 to 15 July 2009 f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, AAM, AGCM-2, NDSM, ICM-CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR-2, CAB g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: None i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 (two pages); applicant's statement to ADRB; Superior Court of Washington, County of Pierce documents (12 pages); AMHRR documents consisting of enlistment contracts, deployment orders, separation document (21 pages) and a DD Form 214; duplicate DD Form 149 and supporting documents (16 pages). 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 the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to general (under honorable conditions). 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. By the documented misconduct (serious offense), the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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, he was discharged on the grounds of grand larceny of BAH due to his ex-spouse filing for a divorce and forging his signature, while he was deployed in Iraq; and he had no involvement in the crimes charged against him. 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 these contentions. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contentions that he was unjustly discharged. The applicant further contends, he was discharged prior to the civilian court proceedings being completed. 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 applicant also contends, he was proven innocent through a court. The applicant submitted court documents; however, they did not exonerate the applicant of any wrong doings. All the documents were pertaining to his divorce. The court documents show a dissolution decree entered on 2 December 2005 was vacated without objection on 13 January 2012 based on its entry without notice to or consent from the respondent husband (applicant) while he was out of the country serving in the U S military. The parties now seek to dissolve their marriage without award of maintenance or fees to either party. 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 August 2020, 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 AR20170008981 1