1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 September 2017 b. Date Received: 20 November 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 pertinent part and in effect, was accused of providing and consuming alcohol with junior enlisted Soldiers, but neither took place. It was merely through personal vendetta that some Soldiers, who were not under the applicant's leadership, had against the applicant when the accusations occurred. The legal officer suggested that it would be a lot easier if the applicant just left because the fighting could, in fact, delve the applicant deeper into the situation. The applicant, who served the country without question for almost six years with two combat tours in Afghanistan, never had any other punitive action. Despite the applicant's misconduct, the service record shows that the applicant should be offered a chance at obtaining a good career in the civilian world. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 9 August 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, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 25 January 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 8 December 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Between April 2015 and November 2015, the applicant violated Army Regulation 600-20, Fraternization policy, by inviting PFC C., PFC P., and SPC T. to his room to play video games and engage in drinking alcohol. Between April 2015 and November 2015, the applicant provided alcohol to minors which is in violation of Colorado Revised Statutes Section 12-47-901 and Colorado Revised Statutes Section 12-47-903. Also as it pertains to characterization of service: Between April 2015 and November 2015, the applicant assaulted PFC C., PFC P., and SPC T. (3) Recommended Characterization: / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 13 December 2016 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 15 /December 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 7 April 2015 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 115 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 11B20, Infantryman / 5 years, 4 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA (30 August 2011 to 6 April 2015) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (28 February 2012 to 4 November 2012), (5 February 2015 to 27 August 2016) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2; AAM; AGCM; NDSM; ACM-2CS; ASR; OSR; NATO MDL g. Performance Ratings: 1 September 2015 thru 30 August 2016, Meet Standard h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CID Report with its associated investigative documents, dated 25 July 2016, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for abusive sexual contact (adult) and assault. Negative counseling statement for being recommended for an involuntary separation. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 30 November 2016, provided no diagnosis, but cleared the applicant from a behavioral health perspective to participate in an administrative separation proceedings. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided 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. 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 14-12c, Misconduct (Serious Offense). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant's record of service and the issues submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms that 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 serious incidents of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and marred the quality of his service that ultimately caused his discharge from the Army. 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 contends his discharge was unjust because through personal vendetta by some Soldiers, he was accused of providing and consuming alcohol with junior enlisted Soldiers, when neither took place. 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. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incidents of misconduct, the Board can find that his accomplishments and complete period of service were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will offer him a chance at obtaining a good career in the civilian world. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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 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 9 August 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 AR20170017717 1