1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 16 August 2017 b. Date Received: 19 December 2017 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, would like an upgrade of discharge because the current characterization of service has caused a severe hardship because the applicant has been unable to work as a police officer since separation. The applicant contends that the discharge was unjust as it was based on an inaccurate, flawed, falsified and incomplete investigation. The discharge was unjust as the separation board acted outside of their authority and used the process as court martial for criminal offenses to find the applicant guilty contrary to all evidence presented acting out of their purview to find the applicant guilty of criminal offenses for which they had no knowledge of or instructions on what constituted the elements of any crimes and were not supported by the testimony or evidence. The discharge was unjust as the applicant had been continuously denied access/due process to the audio recordings of separation board to rebut the findings. The applicant was a model Soldier while a member of the active duty Army and the Army Reserves. The applicant's peers and superiors described the applicant as an exemplary employee. The applicant was known for obeying the rules and being knowledgeable about the job. The applicant was one of the legitimate participants in AR-RAP and only received funds for people the applicant validly recruited. When extensive fraud was discovered in the program, the Army instituted sweeping investigations and entangled many people who had done nothing wrong. The applicant was one of those people. The applicant was improperly found guilty of the charges by an administrative separation board which had no authority to make such a determination of guilt. On the recommendation for the separation board, the applicant was discharged with an under other than honorable characterization of service. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 3 December 2018, 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 / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 4 June 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 23 January 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for wrongfully using personally identifiable information of more than a dozen service member s and wrongfully receiving monetary compensation in the amount of approximately $15,000; and Committing wire fraud, larceny and aggravated identity theft (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 18 February 2015, the applicant requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation board. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF; however, documents submitted by the applicant show that on 20 April 2015, the applicant and his legal counsel appeared before the administrative separation board. The board determined by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant did wrongfully appropriate Government funds, in the amount of a value of more than $500 x5, to wit: the wrongful submission of five Soldiers into the AR-RAP program; committed wire fraud, to wit: voluntarily and intentionally used wire communication to transfer money into his bank account for the wrongful recruitment of five Soldiers in violation of 18 USC 1343, committed aggravated identity theft by knowingly transferring, possessing or using, without authority, a means of personal identifying information (PII) of five Soldiers in violation of 18 USC 1208a. In view of their findings, the board recommended the applicant be discharged from the US Army for serious misconduct and receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 14 May 2015 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: OAD (AGR), 11 June 2012 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 42 / HS Graduate / 114 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-7 / 35F4P, Intelligence Analyst, 31B40, Military Police, 31E40, Correction Specialist / 22 years, 11 months, 20 days (based on DD Form 214 under review) d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 25 August 1988 to 13 April 1992 / HD USARCG, 14 April 1992 to 24 August 1996 / NA (Break-in-Service) USAR, 19 June 2000 to 20 January 2003 / NA OAD, 21 January 2003 to 31 March 2004 / HD USAR, 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2006 / NA Reenlistment in USAR, 1 April 2006 (Indefinite) USAR, 1 April 2006 to 31 October 2009 / NA OAD, 1 November 2009 to 31 October 2010 / HD USAR, 1 November 2010 to 31 January 2011 / NA OAD, 1 February 2011 to 10 June 2012 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq and Kuwait (27 March 2003 to 20 February 2004) f. Awards and Decorations: JSCM, ARCOM-2, AAM-2, JMUA, AGCM-2, ARCAM, ICM- 2CS, NDSM-BSS, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, NOPDR-3, ASR, OSR, ARCOTR, AFRM-M Device-2 g. Performance Ratings: 11 June 2012 to 25 December 2014 (3 reports), Among The Best h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; petition for discharge upgrade; exhibits 1- 11 which includes the administrative separation board proceedings. 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 14-12c 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. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). The applicant's 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 contends that his discharge was unjust as it was based on an inaccurate, flawed, falsified and incomplete investigation. His discharge was unjust as the separation board acted outside of their authority and used the process as court martial for criminal offenses to find him guilt contrary to all evidence presented acting out of their purview to find him guilty of criminal offenses for which they had no knowledge of or instructions on what constituted the elements of any crimes and were not supported by the testimony or evidence. His discharge was unjust as he had been continuously denied access/due process to the audio recordings of separation board to rebut the findings. When extensive fraud was discovered in the program, the Army instituted sweeping investigations the entangled many people who had done nothing wrong. He was one of those people. He was improperly found guilty of the charges against him by an administrative separation board which had no authority to make such a determination of guilt. On the recommendation for the separation board, he was discharged with an under other than honorable characterization of service. 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 his discharge was unjust as it was based on an inaccurate, flawed, falsified and incomplete investigation. In fact, 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. He contends he was a model Soldier while a member of the active duty Army and the Army Reserves. His peers and superiors described him as an exemplary employee. He was known for obeying the rules and being knowledgeable about his job. He was one of the legitimate participants in AR-RAP and he only received funds for people he validly recruited. The applicant's 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. However, 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 applicant expressed his desire for an upgrade of his discharge because his current characterization of service has caused a severe hardship on him being unable to work as a police officer since his separation. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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): Awards and Commendations Evaluations Military Education Documents Law Enforcement Career Documents b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): None c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): None 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 3 December 2018, 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 AR20180000947 4