1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 23 October 2017 b. Date Received: 21 December 2017 c. Counsel: 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) and a change to narrative reason for discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that the applicant served in the U.S Army for 19 years, and during that time, had 6 deployments between Afghanistan, Iraq and Kosovo, and led many missions both in combat and in garrison. The applicant was an Army recruiter, Instructor and in many other leadership positions. While on recruiting duty, the applicant was the Army Recruiter of the year and also received numerous awards and badges because of outstanding performance in the Army. On 3 March 2016, false allegations were made towards the applicant by the ex-wife about their sixteen years of marriage; as the applicant came to find out due to the Army's quick to judge anyone that is accused of sexual assault. The applicant was presumed guilty, the ex-wife later recanted all of the statements to CID. She said she lied because she would rather fight the applicant for life then fight in divorce court. The applicant has seen many articles where this has happened to a lot of Soldiers and they are convicted under no evidence or the person recanted and said they had lie. The applicant believes that because of the outstanding service to U.S. Army, the applicant doesn't deserve the discharge received. All of the Evaluations Reports were impeccable during the time in service; the applicant has never been in trouble or received any Article 15's or any forms of punishment during the time in service or anytime in his life. The applicant has also attached character references from Commanders who the applicant has served with. 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 30% service-connected for PTSD from the VA. In summary, due to the basis of separation not being in file, there is insufficient evidence to determine if the applicant's BH diagnoses are mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 20 November 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 29 September 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 July 2010 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 33 / 3 years College / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-7 / 15R18, AH-64 Attack Hel Rep, 14R10, Bradley LNBKR Crewmember / 19 years, 6 months, 24 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 29 March 1999 to 24 February 2002 / HD RA, 25 February 2002 to 4 August 2006 / HD RA, 5 August 2006 to 26 July 2010 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Kosovo (1 November 2001 to 10 May 2002) Afghanistan (30 November 2002 to 3 April 2003; 9 May 2012 to 23 March 2013; 3 June 2014 to 27 November 2014), Iraq (14 January 2004 to 10 February 2005) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-10, AAM-6, VUA, AGCM-6, NDSM, GWOTSM, KCM, ICM-CS, ACM-CS-3, NOPDR-3, ASR, OSR-4, NATOMDL-2, Gold Recruiter Badge-3SS, Aircraft Crewman Badge Senior, Basic Aviation Badge g. Performance Ratings: 8 December 2010 to 30 May 2011 / Among The Best 31 May 2011 to 30 May 2012 / Among The Best 31 May 2012 to 30 May 2013 / Among The Best 31 May 2013 to 30 May 2014 / Among The Best 31 May 2014 to 30 May 2015 / Among The Best 31 May 2015 to 31 December 2015 / Among The Best 1 January 2016 to 29 September 2016 / Did Not Meet Standard h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CID Reports that makes reference to the applicant having been arrested by a Junction City Police Officer for violation of a protection from abuse order; having sexually assaulted his wife; and having raped and been physically abusive towards his wife. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 34 days (13 July 2016 to 15 September 2016) j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application and character/reference letters. 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. 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 "KFS" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "KFS" will be assigned an RE Code of 4. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions) and a change to his narrative reason for discharge. 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 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 10, by reason of In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Barring evidence to the contrary, the presumption of government regularity prevails as all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Further, the DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of KFS (i.e., in lieu of trial by court-martial) with a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 4. The applicant seeks relief contending that he served in the U.S Army for 19 years, during that time, he had 6 deployments between Afghanistan, Iraq and Kosovo, and he led many missions both in combat and in garrison. He contends he was an Army recruiter, Instructor and in many other leadership positions. While on recruiting duty, he was Army Recruiter of the year and also received numerous awards and badges because of his outstanding performance in the Army. On 3 March 2016 false allegations were made towards him by my ex-wife about their sixteen years of marriage; as he came to find out due to the Army's quick to judge anyone that is accused of sexual assault. He was presumed guilty, his ex-wife later recanted all of her statements to CID. She said she lied because she would rather fight him for his life then fight in divorce court. He contends that he has seen many articles where this has happen too a lot of Soldiers and they are convicted under no evidence or the person recanted and said they had lie. He believes that because of his outstanding service to U.S. Army, he don't deserve the discharge he received. All of his Evaluations Reports were impeccable during his time in service; he has never been in trouble or received any Article 15's or any forms of punishment during his time in service or anytime in his life. He has also attached character references from Commanders who he has served with. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, it is unknown if these contentions have merit because the facts and circumstances leading to the discharge are not contained in the service record. 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. Based on the available record, it appears 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. 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): None b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): Applicant and counsel provided oral arguments in support of the contentions they provided in their written submissions and in support of their documentary evidence c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 20 November 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 11. 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 AR20170019350 4