1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 9 June 2016 b. Date Received: 14 June 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of an under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable and to be reinstated in the Army Reserve. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge was improper and should be changed immediately because it was predicated on falsified findings by an unforeseen "Show Cause Board" that alleged a 12 year security clearance misconduct issue. The documentation and pertinent military records, explicitly support the fact that a security clearance issue never existed. Approximately 15 months after the applicant submitted an IG request to address the unforeseen issue, the 143rd ESC IG Memorandum dated 4 October 2015, totally contradicts the "Show Cause Board" findings. The applicant states, the discharge was also inequitable because a portion of the evidence the applicant provides pertaining to promotion orders explicitly contradicts the alleged 12 year security clearance misconduct issue by the unforeseen memorandum of the "Show Cause Board" findings. Also, there was absolutely no prior counseling statements from any Commanding leadership official of the entire 143rd ESC pertaining to an alleged security clearance misconduct issue to predicate a "Show Cause Board." In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 26 July 2019 and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service to include combat service, and a prior period of honorable service. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to general under honorable conditions. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Moral or Professional Dereliction / AR 135-175, Chapter 2-11 / NA / NA / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 9 July 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 17 April 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: On 28 November 2012, the applicant was notified via certified mail to show cause for retention in the US Army Reserve under the provisions of AR 135-175, paragraphs 2-11i(1), (2), and (3)d and 2-11o, for moral or professional dereliction. The applicant failed to acknowledge receipt of the initiation of separation action and of the separation board. The applicant was informed of the following reasons: In accordance with AR 135-175, paragraph 2-11c, the applicant (by intentional neglect or failure) mismanaging his personal affairs to discredit of the service to wit: he had not had a security clearance in approximately 12 years and he had refused to complete a packet to get one; In accordance with AR 135-175, paragraph 2-11f, the applicant failed (by intentional or neglect or failure) by committing acts of personal misconduct, to wit: on or about 11 July 2010, he made repeated insubordinate and disrespectful statements to a superior commissioned officer; and, His refusal to submit a packet to get a security clearance and commission of acts of misconduct by making insubordinate and disrespectful statements to superior commissioned officer were acts unbecoming an officer and were deemed moral or professional dereliction pursuant to AR 135-175, paragraph 2-11o. The Board found the applicant had committed the aforementioned misconduct and recommended the applicant be separated from the US Army Reserve. (3) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (4) GCMCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 9 May 2014, the GCMCA recommended the applicant be separated for moral or professional dereliction. / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (5) HQDA Decision / Characterization: 10 June 2014 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 7 August 1998 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment / Education / GT Score: 31 / Bachelor's Degree / NA c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: CW3 / 890A, Ammunition Warrant Officer / 24 years, 10 months, 1 day d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 8 September 1989 - 6 August 1998 / HD (Enlisted Service) AD, 8 July 1989 - 6 August 1998 / HD (Concurrent Service) OAD, 3 January 2003 - 14 March 2004 / NA (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (NIF) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, MUC, ARCAM-2, NDSM, NATOMDL, AFSM, SWASM-3BSS, KLM-KU, KLM-SA, NCOPDR, ASR g. Performance Ratings: 7 August 1998 - 6 August 1999 / Do Not Promote 7 August 1999 - 6 May 2000 / Fully Qualified 7 February 2003 - 6 February 2004 / Fully Qualified 7 February 2004 - 6 February 2005 / Fully Qualified 7 February 2005 - 6 February 2006 / Best Qualified 7 February 2006 - 6 February 2007 / Fully Qualified 7 February 2008 - 6 February 2009 / Fully Qualified 7 February 2010 - 11 September 2010 / Other 12 September 2010 - 11 September 2011 / Fully Qualified 12 September 2011 - 20 May 2012 / Fully Qualified 21 May 2012 - 20 May 2013 / Fully Qualified 21 May 2013 - 20 May 2014 / Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Memorandum, AR 15-6 Investigation, dated 15 January 2008, reflects the investigation officer found that: The applicant more likely than not was asleep while he was supposed to be supervising Soldiers at the flashing point. Based on the applicant's unwillingness to answer any further questions without evidence to the contrary, the Investigating Officer could only conclude the applicant knew or should have known SFC H was driving at excessive speeds and he was obliged to correct SFC H's behavior, but failed to do so. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer found that the applicant's actions, as specified above, substantiate that he engaged in conduct unbecoming for an officer. The applicant's disrespectful remarks were evidence that he engaged in conduct unbecoming for an officer. The applicant left BGAD on 15 June 2007, the day before he was authorized to leave. The applicant knew or should have known that he was required to certify that he traveled on 15 June 2007 and not 16 June 2007. The applicant falsely claimed on his travel voucher that he traveled from BGAD to his home of record on 16 June 2007. The applicant made false official statements on his annual training order and on his DD Form 1351-2, by stating on the documents that he was in an official duty status on 16 June 2007, when he knew or should have known that he was not. Further, the applicant engaged in conduct unbecoming for an officer by absenting himself from his official place of duty on 16 June 2007 without CPT G's authorization. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 6 August 2010, for engaging in Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and Gentleman. During the 1 July 2010, Battle Assembly of the 642nd RSG, he refused on two separate occasions to be counseled by the Commander and Deputy Commander. He made repeated insubordinate and disrespectful statements to his superior commissioned officers. His insubordinate and disrespectful acts occurred in public in front of the entire headquarters during a Family Day event. Relief For Cause (memo), dated 11 September 2010, reflects the commander 642nd Regional Support Group relieved the applicant of his duties and position. The commander had no confidence that the applicant was able to complete any assigned duties with the command and sited several acts of misconduct by the applicant for the decision. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DA Form 1559; DD Form 149; DD Form 293; self-authored statement; chronological order of events; case separation documents; seven DA Forms 67-9; Orders D-08-412441; copy of his identification card; several emails; Inspector General memorandum; WAREX certificate; letter to LTG T; Congressional assistance request. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 135-175, prescribes the policies, criteria, and procedures governing the separation of Reserve officers of the Army. Chapter 2, prescribes the criteria and procedures governing the involuntary separation of Reserve officers of the Army when their retention is not in the best interest of the service. Chapter 2-11, while not all-inclusive, existence of one of the following or similar conditions, unless successfully rebutted, authorizes involuntary separation of an officer due to moral or professional dereliction. Officers discharged for any of the prescribed conditions may be furnished an honorable or general discharge certificate, or other than honorable conditions discharge. Conditions which may result in involuntary separation include: Discreditable, intentional failure to meet personal financial obligations; Mismanagement of personal affairs to the discredit of the service; Mismanagement of personal affairs detrimentally affecting the performance of duty of the officer concerned; Intentional omission or misstatement of facts in official statements or records, for the purpose of misrepresentation; Acts of personal misconduct; Intentional neglect or failure; Conviction by civil court of a felony when no sentence to confinement results; Conviction by a foreign court, resulting in confinement or other restriction of the officer's freedom which significantly diminishes that individual's usefulness to the Army. Entry into a military service of a foreign government; Special derogatory evaluation report; Failure to meet the standards in a course of instruction at a service school due to disciplinary reasons; and, Conduct unbecoming an officer. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable and to be reinstated in the Army Reserve. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends he should be reinstated in the US Army Reserve immediately. However, the applicant's request does 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 he was never informed about his imminent discharge. However, the record shows the unit commander attempted to contact the applicant and mailed the discharge packet to include the Show Cause notification to his last known address via certified mail. Army Regulation 135-175, in pertinent part, stipulates if the officer refuses to accept or respond to the notification, the area commander will take necessary steps to appoint a board of officers, as prescribed in this regulation and AR 15-6. A copy of the notification and either a post office receipt confirming delivery or the returned unopened envelope showing mail was refused, unclaimed, or not delivered will become part of the board exhibits. This board may proceed in the officer's absence without according the privileges listed in paragraph 2-17, except that counsel will be appointed to represent him in his absence. The evidence of the record reflects the board proceedings were conducted in the absence of the applicant; and, without an appointed counsel to represent the applicant. 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 26 July 2019 and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service to include combat service, and a prior period of honorable service. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to general under honorable conditions. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: General Under Honorable Conditions 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 AR20170009539 1