1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 5 November 2017 b. Date Received: 9 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. The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that civilian law had acted unjust due to false information the ex-spouse had given. The applicant's military rights were questionable to the evidence that was obtained. The applicant's personal addiction was not their finding but the evidence was persuaded to learn that family violence was committed. In actuality, no family violence took place. The command never accepted that the evidence at hand was not the applicant's charge nor the reason the military chaptered the applicant after never being treated or convicted of family violence. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 3 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 18 August 2003 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 9 June 2003 (2) Basis for Separation: The evidence of record contains two DD Form's 458, Charge Sheets which indicates on 9 June 2003, the applicant was charged with the following offenses: Charge I, in violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Without authority, absent himself from his unit from 30 April 2002 until 6 May 2002 and from 12 May 2003 until 27 May 2003. Charge II, in violation of UCMJ, Article 112 (a): Wrongfully using Methamphetamine a controlled substance between 12 April and 17 April 2003. Additional Charge: in violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Knowingly engaged in conduct directed specifically toward T.N. that he knew or reasonably believed that T.N. would regard as threatening bodily injury or death to T.N. 15 May 2002; and Wrongfully communicated to T.N., a threat to injure T.N., by causing bodily harm to her on 15 May 2002. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 22 July 2003 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 31 July 2003 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 December 2000 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 29 / HS Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 13B10, Cannon Crewmember / 10 years, 4 months, 20 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 26 October 1989 to 25 July 1990 / NA ADT, 26 July 1990 to 2 November 1990 / UNC ARNG, 3 November 1990 to 10 July 1992 / GD USARCG, 11 July 1992 to 25 October 1997 / UNK Break-in-Service e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 30 April 2002, for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 24 February 2002. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $342 pay, and extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Serious Accident/Incident Report Work Sheet, which makes reference to the applicant and his wife having gotten into a fight and she decided to leave the premises. The applicant slashed the tires of the car, physically hit her, threatened to kill her, and threatened to kill himself. His wife went to the neighbor's house and called the police. The Harker Heights Police Department (HHPD) picked the applicant up at his home and found over one (1) gram of methamphetamines, a felony charge. The HHPD held the applicant for arraignment on 17 April 2003. Although the incident occurred at 2103 on Wednesday 16 April 2003, the Military Police did not alert the battalion until 0510 on Thursday, 17 April 2003. At 0515, the battalion SDO called MAJ D, the battalion XO. Electronic copy of the DD Form 2624, dated 30 April 2003, reflects the applicant tested positive for Methamphetamines during a Probable Cause (PO) urinalysis testing conducted on 17 April 2003. Several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and duty performance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: Total time lost 37 days; AWOL lost time 18 days; 6 days (30 April 2002 to 5 May 2002) / mode of return unknown; 12 days (15 May 2003 to 26 May 2003) / surrendered; Civilian Confinement lost time 19 days; 8 days (3 June 2002 to 10 June 2002); 6 days (16 April 2003 to 21 April 2003); and 5 days (30 May 2003 to 3 August 2003). j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 in lieu of DD Form 293. 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. The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. 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 no acts of significant achievement or valor and did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority at the time of discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending that civilian law had acted unjust due to false information his ex-spouse had given. He contends his military rights were questionable to the evidence that was obtained. His personal addiction was not their finding but the evidence was persuaded to learn that family violence was committed. In actuality, no family violence took place. His command never accepted that the evidence at hand was not his charge nor the reason the military chaptered him when he was never treated or convicted of family violence. 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. The applicant's incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. Evidence shows the applicant voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial and that he made his request of his own free will and he had not been subject to any coercion whatsoever by any person. 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 3 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 AR20180001081 1