1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 6 November 2017 b. Date Received: 6 November 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, would like an upgrade of discharge for the purpose of being able to receive all the benefits that are due, including, but not limited to, financial and medical care. The applicant enlisted into the Army in 1997 with every intention of serving the country as a brave, selfless, and upstanding Soldier. The applicant took advantage of every opportunity that the Army afforded by successfully completing Airborne School, Air Assault School, Ranger Indoctrination Program (RIP) and the Professional Leadership Development Course (PLDC). The applicant earned multiple awards, badges and other honors; served well in every position the applicant was assigned to and prided oneself on being a positive influence towards subordinates and peers. All NCOERs reflected success, in addition to having the potential to serve in the next grade. The applicant understood the Army values and maintained every standard set. As a young buck sergeant, the applicant fully entrusted those who served with, beside, and over the applicant. It never occurred to the applicant that the applicant would be involved in any activity that would bring shame or dishonor to the applicant's name. Between 9 April 2001 and 15 January 2003, unbeknownst to the applicant, the applicant's signature along with others, was forged on nine frivolous TDY travel orders and settlement vouchers by a SPC Andrei Shaw without the applicant's knowledge. There was a full investigation into the matter. MAJ C. L. C., was interviewed and rendered a sworn statement, as the MAJ was a victim as well. As a young Soldier, the applicant was uninformed about the CID investigations and felt unconfident and or afraid that the applicant's name wouldn't be cleared after all of the evidence the applicant had presented, which is why the applicant decided to take a Chapter 10. However, the applicant now realizes that the applicant made one of the worst decisions of life by accepting a Chapter 10 and not fighting it. During the enlistment, the applicant was a highly motivated Soldier and enjoyed serving the country. If the applicant could rejoin the Army, the applicant would not hesitate to swear in and serve the country once again. The applicant feels as though the discharge should be upgraded due to it was proven that SPC Shaw signed several Soldiers signatures without or knowledge as well as it was proved that the person whom signed the signature was a strong left handed person, whereas the applicant is right handed. Any monies that were not owed to the applicant were repaid back to the government because that was the right thing to do. Evidence of records shows the applicant had a prior records review on 17 November 2004. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 7 October 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, a prior period of honorable service and post-service accomplishments. 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 14 January 2004 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 17 November 2003 (2) Basis for Separation: The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458, Charge Sheet which indicates on 17 November 2003, the applicant was charged with the following offenses: Stealing funds of a value of about $165.00 the military property of the United States Government 6 April 2001; Stealing funds of a value of about $421.00 the military property of the United States Government 11 May 2001; Stealing funds of a value of about $95.00 the military property of the United States Government 10 December 2001; Stealing funds of a value of about $3,254.60 the military property of the United States Government 4 June 2002; Stealing funds of a value of about $10,650.25 the military property of the United States Government between 15 August 2002 and 21 November 2002; Stealing funds of a value of about $1,029.11 the military property of the United States Government 27 February 2002; Stealing funds of a value of about $704.45 the military property of the United States Government 19 February 2003; and Conspiring with Specialist A.A.S., to commit an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to wit: larceny of funds, of a value of about $13,904.85, the military property of the United States Government, and in order to effect the object of the conspiracy the said Specialist A.A. Shaw did create travel order number 20945713 and travel order number 21246913. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: The record contains an undated document. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 23 December 2003 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 9 February 2001 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / HS Graduate / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist / 6 years, 2 months, 17 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 28 October 1997 to 8 February 2001 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-3, AGCM, NOPDR, ASR g. Performance Ratings: February 2001 to January 2002, Among The Best February 2002 to December 2002, Among The Best January 2003 to April 2003, Among The Best h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CID Reports showing the applicant was the subject of investigation for conspiracy, making false official statements, and larceny of government funds. Pay Adjustment Authorization / Debt to Government documents. Military Police Report showing the applicant was the subject of investigation for taking possession of tools for the commission of crime and loitering or prowling. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; letters of recommendation; letter to his Congressmen; enlistment documents; evidence/property custody document; sworn statement; memorandum reference debt to government; document supporting his claim of feud; and DD Form 214 for the period of service under review. 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 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Army policy states that although an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. The applicant, in consultation with legal counsel voluntarily requested, in writing, a discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense, and he indicated he understood he could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veterans' benefits. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. His record documents several acts of significant achievement and valor; however, it did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority at the time of discharge. It should be noted that on 19 December 2003, the applicant acknowledged, in writing that he received three travel pay settlements in the amount of $13,904, and agreed to reimburse the US Government. The CID investigation revealed that it was probable that the applicant wrote his signature on at least three or four of the false documentation in order to obtain travel pay settlements. After consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily, and in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, the applicant admitted guilt to the stipulate or lesser-included offenses under the UCMJ. Also it was noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge was normally under other than honorable conditions and that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending he took advantage of every opportunity that the Army afforded him by successfully completing Airborne School, Air Assault School, Ranger Indoctrination Program (RIP) and the Professional Leadership Development Course (PLDC). He earned multiple awards, badges and other honors; served well in every position he was assigned to and prided himself on being a positive influence toward his subordinates and peers. All of his NCOERs reflected success, in addition to having the potential to serve in the next grade. He understood the Army values and maintained every standard set before him. As a young buck sergeant, he fully entrusted those who served with, beside, and over him. The applicant's contentions were noted; his service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered and the applicant is to be commended on his accomplishments. The applicant also contends that as a young Soldier, he was uninformed about CID investigations and felt unconfident and or afraid that his name wouldn't be cleared after all of the evidence he had presented, which is why he decided to take a Chapter 10. However, he now realize that he made one of the worst decisions of his life by accepting a Chapter 10 and not fighting it. 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 accused of the crime. In fact, the applicant's two Articles 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 service record indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant's numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. 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. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): CID Document (1 page) b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): Applicant provided oral argument and statements in support of the contentions provided in written submissions and in support of previously submitted documentary evidence c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): None 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 7 October 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, a prior period of honorable service and post-service accomplishments. 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. 11. 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 AR20170019240 5