1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 24 August 2017 b. Date Received: 26 October 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, was unjustly discharged and that the applicant was targeted due to circumstances out of the applicant's control. In 2012, the applicant joined the Army and wanted to start the journey to what would be a 20 year career full of learning experiences, culture shocks, lifetime friendships, and traveling the world all while doing what the applicant loved. But when the applicant got to the duty station the day after getting out of reception, the applicant was forced to live off base in an apartment complex 15 minutes from base and purchase a car (that the applicant still owes on) to commute to and from the base because the Sergeant "wasn't going to be taking the applicant" due to the fact the applicant was married to a High School sweetheart at the time. The applicant didn't have the money to even buy furniture after that so the applicant slept on the floor of the apartment the applicant was forced to lease. The wife at the time was in basic training and when she graduated since both of them were in the military, the applicant wasn't entitled too BAH anymore. The people at finance told the applicant about being overpaid, so for several months the applicant wasn't paid anything causing the sergeant to take the applicant to get two emergency loans (that the applicant still owes on) to pay rent and car note. The applicant eventually couldn't pay for the apartment (that the applicant still owes on) which forced the applicant to move back on base. The applicant was knocked unconscious during a field event and upon awaking knew the military didn't love the applicant the way the applicant once loved it. The Captain saw the applicant and didn't want the applicant to go to the hospital since they were leaving in two days and that the applicant should "Soldier it out". The applicant told the Sergeant then that maybe the military wasn't for the applicant and the response was (the Sergeant would try to get the applicant for failure to adapt). The applicant did nothing major while enlisted; no DUI, no drug usage, no criminal charges on or off base. At the most, the applicant had two driving tickets for speeding to work so every time the applicant was late, the applicant was penalized even on occasions when it would be the applicant and another person, only the applicant would get wrote up. This happened enough times to earn an Article 15 and extra duty so it went from failure to adapt to let's just kick the applicant out, it's faster. The applicant begged the SGT to get it so that the applicant and wife could at-least be at the same duty station, which never happened and caused the marriage to fail. The applicant filed a complaint on the SGT for this and it wasn't fair the applicant had given the Army everything only to be left with being divorced and in debt still to this day. The applicant begged to just be moved to another unit because the applicant still loved the Army and wanted to be a part of the brotherhood which was denied. The applicant was kicked out the Army owing the Army due to the bad leadership the applicant was under. The applicant did no wrongs, but was discharged for a pattern of misconduct. 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 no BH diagnoses while on active duty. The applicant is 40% service-connected for mTBI from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Depressive Disorder NOS, Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Depressed Mood, and mTBI. In summary, the applicant's BH diagnosis does not mitigate the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 24 June 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 30 April 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 9 April 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for being disrespectful toward SGT H.P., on 10 October 2013; and Failing to report to his appointed place of duty on 18 November 2013, 19 November 2013, 21 November 2013, 25 November 2013, 27 January 2014, 28 January 2014, 31 January 2014, 4 February 2014, 5 February 2014, 7 February 2014, and 12 February 2014. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 10 April 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 15 April 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 10 October 2012 / 3 years, 23 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 101 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 92G10, Food Service / 1 year, 6 months, 14 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTS, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 13 October 2013, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 18 July 2013, 19 July 2013, and 21 July 2013. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1 (suspended), forfeiture of $353 pay (suspended), and extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 26 March 2014, shows the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and could appreciated the difference between right and wrong. The applicant was cleared for administrative separation action as deemed appropriated by his commander under Chapter 14-12b. Several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and duty performance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL 4 days (17 April 2014 to 20 April 2014) / mode of return unknown and 3 days (25 April 2014 to 27 April 2014) / mode of return unknown j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; auto contract; and leasing/vacate letter. 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 14-12b addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant's available/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 unjustly discharged and that he was targeted due to circumstances out of his control. 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 or targeted because of circumstances out of his control. In fact, the applicant's Article 15 and numerous negative counseling statements justify a pattern of misconduct. 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. 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 24 June 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 AR20170016464 1