1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 10 August 2017 b. Date Received: 15 August 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, believes the discharge is inequitable. The applicant's eight years of honorable service should not be defined by one mistake. The applicant had been discharged, not by court-martial, but by losing Lautenberg Amendment rights, which in turn banned the applicant from carrying, possessing, supplying any type of fire arms or ammunition. The applicant made a big mistake and will be paying for it for the rest of life. The applicant was ordered to forfeit $500 per month for four months and was restricted to the limits of Schofield Barracks for 45 days. After the incident, the applicant attended and graduated from the Behavioral Health Program with a letter of recognition from the Deputy Chief of Behavioral Health. The applicant now attends Hawaii Pacific University as a full-time student in pursuit of a Bachelor's Degree in Management and Information Systems. The applicant still holds the head high in hopefulness and never giving up attitude, but this on the record has been a burden on future endeavors. The applicant wants to continue helping society and giving the community what the applicant has to offer. The intensive background, which the applicant received from the Army, has helped the applicant succeed, such as the Army Values and professionalism. The applicant wants to one day, upon graduation, apply for a government job using what the applicant is currently studying and what the applicant did for the Army, which was managing information using computer information systems. The applicant also managed the Division G-1 website that provided vital information to Soldiers, the FRG, commanders and more. The applicant was told by a mentor that she hopes that the applicant does not always have to prove oneself worthy because of one mistake, and not to let one mistake define the applicant, but rather learn from them and move on. The applicant has learned from these mistakes and is remorseful and apologetic for what occurred. The applicant paid the price for the mistake and has a lifetime sentence of not being able to carry, possess or transport firearms. The applicant requests that the Board reconsider the characterization and not let it justify who the applicant is for the rest of life and help the applicant look forward to the future, instead carrying what is behind. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 27 March 2019, 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 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 5 April 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 7 January 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 October 2012 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / 1 year of college / 94 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 42A30, Human Resources / 8 years, 10 months, 28 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 8 May 2007 - 28 June 2010 / HD RA, 29 June 2010 - 30 September 2012 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii, SWA / Afghanistan (29 November 2011 - 22 December 2012); Iraq (4 December 2008 - 17 November 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM-2, MUC, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR-2, NATOMDL, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 1 January 2013 - 15 October 2013 / Among The Best 16 October 2013 - 15 October 2014 / Marginal 16 October 2014 - 5 February 2016 / Met Standard h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Court-Martial Number 24, dated 20 October 2015, reflects the following charges, pleas and findings: Charge I: Article 128. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Specification 1: Did, at or near Waipahu, Hawaii, on or about 17 July 2014, commit an assault upon Ms. X by striking her on the head with a means likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm, to wit: his elbow. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Guilty, except the words, "a means likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm, to wit", of the excepted words: Not Guilty. Specification 2: Did, at or near Waipahu, Hawaii, on or about 17 July 2014, unlawfully tackle Ms. S.H. with his arms and body. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Not Guilty. Specification 3: Did, at or near Waipahu, Hawaii, on or about 17 July 2014, commit an assault upon Ms. X. by striking her on the head with a means likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm, to wit: his fists. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Guilty, except the words, "a means likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm, to wit", of the excepted words: Not Guilty. Charge II: Article 134. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Not Guilty. The Specification: A married man, did, at or near Waipahu, Hawaii, on divers occasions from about 1 June 2012 to 17 June 2014, wrongfully have sexual intercourse with Ms. X, a woman not his wife, 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. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Not Guilty. Sentence was adjudged on 14 May 2015: To forfeit $500 pay per month for 4 months; and to be restricted to the limits of Schofield Barracks, and Wheeler Army Airfield for 45 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; self-authored statement; and, General court-martial proceedings and allied document. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, he is a full-time student in pursuit of a Bachelor's Degree in Management and Information Systems. 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. 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant's available record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. However, the applicant's record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of Misconduct (Serious Offense), with a characterization of service of General (Under Honorable Conditions). Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant would have been protected throughout the separation process. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed. However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is "JKQ". 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's contentions about his discharge was a form of a life-long punishment was carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. The applicant contends the event that caused his discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends that he had good service which included two combat tours. 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 Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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. Based on the available record, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 27 March 2019, 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 AR20170016150 1