1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 January 2018 b. Date Received: 2 February 2018 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 effect, would like an upgrade of discharge for the purpose of being able to receive educational benefits. The applicant was transferred from one unit to another because the applicant demonstrated great skills and competency in one's field as a Crew Chief. However after only a few short weeks of working in the new unit, the applicant began to butt heads with SFC J.M. and SFC M.F., verbally both of those NCO' told the applicant they would have the applicant demoted and chaptered out of the Army. SFC M.F., even said he would shoot the applicant in the back if the SFC had the chance. The applicant contends that if you ask any peers or higher ups in different company's and the E-6 and below in the unit at the time, the applicant was a top notch Soldier and Crew Chief. The two E-7's had formed a god old boys club and the applicant was not in the club. The applicant contends that the applicant requested several time to be removed from the company to another company. The applicant contends that the applicant worked very hard and served in Operation Enduring Freedom during an almost four years of service, the applicant never quit trying to be the best at one's job despite the horrible situation the applicant was stuck in. These two men had effectively thrown one's entire life off course; the applicant and the family have suffered a great deal over the years and would like to try to fix it, but needs help so the applicant can further an education. The applicant personally believes that the applicant deserves this, and also believes that SFC J.M. and SFC M.F. should be investigated and prosecuted in some way because the applicant knows the applicant is not the only Soldier they have done this too, they have both completely abuse their position and rank and do not deserve the right to call themselves leaders. 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 diagnoses of Alcohol Intoxication and TBI. The applicant is 10% service-connected for Bursitis. In summary, the applicant's BH diagnosis is not mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 13 April 2020, 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 14 May 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 2 April 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for having on diver's occasions failed to report to his appointed place of duty, being derelict in the performance of his duties, assaulting another Soldier, and having been drunk and disorderly (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 8 April 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 23 June 2010 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 115 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 15R10, AH-64 Attack Helicopter Repairer / 3 years, 10 months, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Afghanistan (9 May 2012 to 6 March 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM, ACM-CS, OSR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Summarized Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 9 December 2012, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 11 November 2012 and 19 November 2012. The punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction for 14 days. CG Article 15, dated 7 May 2013, for being derelict in the performance of his duties in that he negligently failed to conduct a proper preventative maintenance daily inspection and failed to inform his supervisor that aircraft 011 was un-airworthy due to an oil leak, as it was his duty to do on or about 23 January 2013. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-3. Military Police Report, dated 15 September 2013, indicates the applicant was the subject of investigation for simple assault and being drunk and disorderly. CG Article 15, dated 4 December 2013, for assaulting SGT E.F., by swinging in his general direction and being drunk and disorderly which conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline and of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces on or about 14 September 2013. The punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 13 January 2014, which indicates the applicant could understand and participated in administrative proceedings and appreciated the difference between right and wrong. At the time, there was no evidence that the applicant had a condition that showed impairment in social and or/occupational functioning or that he had a disorder meeting AR 40-501 criteria. The applicant was cleared from a Behavioral Health Standpoint for any administrative proceedings. Several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and duty performance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; verification of military experience and training; character/reference statements; orders for award of the Good Conduct Medal; reassignment orders; and the notification memorandum from separation packet. 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 14-12b addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 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, 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 seeks relief contending that he was transferred from one unit to another because he demonstrated great skills and competency in his field as a Crew Chief. However after only a few short weeks of working in his new unit he began to butt heads with SFC J.M. and SFC M.F., verbally both of those NCO' told him they would have him demoted and chaptered out of the Army. SFC M.F., even said he would shoot him in the back if he had the chance. The applicant contends that if you ask any of his peers or higher ups in different company's and the E-6 and below in his unit at the time he was a top notch Soldier and Crew Chief. The two E-7's had formed a god old boys club and he was not in the club. The applicant contends that he requested several time to be removed from his company to another company. He contends that he worked very hard and served in Operation Enduring Freedom during his almost four years of service, he never quit trying to be the best at his job despite the horrible situation he was stuck in. These two men had effectively thrown his entire life off course; he and his family have suffered a great deal over the years and he would like to try to fix it, he just need help so he can further his education. He personally believes that he deserves this, he also believes that SFC J.M. and SFC M.F. should be investigated and prosecuted in some way because he knows he is not the only Soldier they have done this too, they have both completely abuse their position and rank and do not deserve the right to call themselves leaders. 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 treated by the NCO's in his unit. 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 applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that he would like an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to receive educational benefits. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 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 13 April 2020, 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 AR20180003659 1