1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 17 August 2017 b. Date Received: 18 September 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, out of six years and one deployment, has never been in any trouble. The applicant was never provided the opportunity to appear before the separation board to defend oneself. The commander, who not only vouched for the applicant's absences, also requested to retain the applicant, but it was denied. The commander's statement was not allowed or considered in the final decision to discharge. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 5 April 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: NA / AR 135-178 / NA / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 3 May 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 30 January 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant accumulated nine or more absences during the last 12 months. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: (Election of Rights response left blank) (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 12 April 2013 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 16 December 2006 / 8-year MSO (USAR) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 17 / HS Letter / 94 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 74D10, Chemical Operations Specialist / 6 years, 4 months, 18 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR (16 December 2006 to 25 July 2007) / NA IADT (26 July 2007 to 17 December 2007) / HD USAR (18 December 2007 to 28 March 2008) / NA OIF (29 March 2008 to 21 April 2009) / HD USAR (22 April 2009 - Continuous Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Kuwait/Iraq (26 May 2008 to 27 March 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM; NDSM; GWOTEM; GWOTSM; ASR; OSR; AFRM-M DEV g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Three Letters of Instruction - Unexcused Absence, dated 6 March 2012, 16 April 2012, and 9 September 2012. The latter shows the applicant accrued 12 unexcused absences within one- year period. Affidavit of Service by Mail, dated 6 March 2012, indicates a Letter of Instruction, dated 6 March 2012, was mailed a certified mail on 6 March 2012. Affidavit of Service by Mail, dated 19 April 2012, indicates a letter of instruction, dated 16 April 2012, was mailed a certified mail on 19 April 2012. Affidavit of Service by Mail, dated 11 September 2012, indicates a letter of instruction, dated 9 September 2012, was mailed a certified mail on 11 September 2012. Affidavit of Service by Mail, dated 31 January 2013, indicates the notification of separation proceedings, dated 30 January 2013, was mailed a certified mail on 31 January 2013. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: NIF / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 17 August 2017. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 135-178 sets forth the policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the U.S. Army while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons. The separation policies throughout the different Chapters in this regulation promote the readiness of the Army by providing an orderly means to judge the suitability of persons to serve on the basis of their conduct and their ability to meet required standards of duty performance and discipline. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, and convictions by civil authorities. Chapter 13, in pertinent part, states that individuals can be separated for being an unsatisfactory participant. Army Regulation 135-91 states that a member is an unsatisfactory participant when nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills acrue during a one-year period and attempts to have the Soldier respond or comply with orders or correspondence have resulted in the Soldier's refusal to comply with orders or correspondence; or a notice sent by certified mail was refused, unclaimed, or otherwise undeliverable; or verification that the Soldier has failed to notify the command of a change of address and reasonable attempts to contact the Soldier have failed. Discharge action may be taken when the Soldier cannot be located or is absent in the hands of civil authorities in accordance with the provisions of AR 135-91, paragraph 2-18, and Chapter 3, section IV, of AR 135-178. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general (under honorable conditions) discharge or an honorable discharge may be granted. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant's available record of service and the issues 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 his refusal to participate in unit drills, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a general (under honorable conditions) or an honorable discharge. 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 US Army Reserve. The record shows the unit commander attempted to contact the applicant on several occasions and mailed the discharge packet to his last known address via certified mail. Army Regulation 135-178, in pertinent part, stipulates that a Soldier is subject to discharge for unsatisfactory participation when it is determined the Soldier is unqualified for further military service because the Soldier is an unsatisfactory participant as prescribed in Chapter 4, AR 135-91 and attempts to have the Soldier respond or comply with orders or correspondence have resulted in the Soldier's refusal to comply with such orders or correspondence; or a notice sent by certified mail was refused, unclaimed, or otherwise undeliverable; or verification that the Soldier failed to notify the command of a change of address and reasonable attempts to contact the Soldier have failed. The applicant's numerous contentions as bases for his discharge being unjust were carefully considered. 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 his issues. 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 available 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 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 5 April 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 AR20170016382 1