1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 7 May 2018 b. Date Received: 11 May 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, that while many events took place, what happened in Afghanistan was not justified. The applicant risked life for the country and was threatened, accused, assaulted, and mentally pushed to the extreme. The applicant asks that the attached IG complaint be reviewed. While there are some misspellings and the grammar is not of the highest level, the statements made to IG at BAF, Afghanistan is completely true and in need of consideration related to the character of discharge. Additionally, since the end of service, the applicant has remained employed and has even advanced in education. At this time, the applicant has earned two associates of arts degrees, a bachelor degree, a master degree, and is currently a doctoral candidate working on a dissertation for a PHD. The applicant has been very productive since the end of service. The applicant contends that after the events that happened, the applicant was given a summary court-martial (administrative level) in a dining facility tent at Forward Operation Base (FOB Salerno with no lawyer even though he repeatedly asked to have legal counsel. There was no CID involvement only the chain of command. The unit threw a bunch of trumped up charges at the applicant, but only a few stuck. The applicant defended oneself the best way possible with no legal experience and limited education (less than two years of community college at that time). After convicted, the applicant was sentenced to 30 days confinement, was handcuffed and shackled to a tent pole, and given an ammo can to sit on for three days until being transported out of country. During this time the applicant was paraded around the FOB to the dining facility (the long way), was ridiculed and people took pictures. The applicant had one thing still under control and that was the decision to eat. The applicant starved the entire three days in protest of the inhuman treatment. The applicant served the rest of confinement at a DOD prison in Mannheim, Germany, where the applicant was released early for good behavior. Shortly after being sent back to the duty station, the applicant was discharged. The applicant contends that while the applicant may not have always said the right thing at the right time, what the applicant was put through no one deserved. They pushed the applicant to a limit that many men would crack. The applicant survived with immense emotional scars. Having made it through what they did, the applicant remained level-headed and should be testament to the fact that the applicant is not deserving of this level of a discharge. If the provided documentation would present enough information to upgrade the discharge, the applicant would be happy to forgo the hearing. Changing the characterization of discharge is very important to the applicant. The applicant has worked very hard in a career and education spending over $80,000 in educational loans. The applicant went back to school to make a better life, but the discharge continues to hurt advancement and is making it hard for the applicant to advance to a level in order to pay back student loans. The applicant hopes to dedicate life to continuing to advance in law enforcement. An upgrade of discharge will help allow the applicant to serve and protect the public based off of hard work and achievements. In a travel panel hearing conducted in Warner Robins, GA on 27 February 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: Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 19 July 2004 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: 13 March 2002 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduated / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: 11B1P, Infantryman / 2 years, 4 months, 7 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska, SWA / Afghanistan (Period of service unknown) f. Awards and Decorations: GWOTEM, GWOTSM, NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; IG statement made while he was in BAF Afghanistan; educational transcripts; resume; certificates for Associate of Arts, Associate of Applied Science, Bachelor of Science in Business Global Business Management (Graduated with Honors)and Master of Business Administration Global Management, and member of Lambda Sigma Chapter of University of Phoenix. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends that since his discharge he has remained employed and has even advance in his education. At this time, he has earned two associates of arts degrees, a bachelor degree, a master degree, and is currently a doctoral candidate working on his dissertation for his PH D. He has been very productive since the end of his service. He has remained out of trouble and has a spotless criminal record. He was a private detective for a couple of years and then spent many years in retail management managing hundreds of associates. He is a correctional officer at a maximum security state prison in South Carolina. 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 general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. 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 specific 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 14, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of Misconduct, with a characterization of service of Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant would have been protected throughout the separation process. The applicant's contentions, that while many events took place, what happened to him in Afghanistan was not justified. He put his life on the line for his country and he was threatened, accused, assaulted, and mentally pushed to the extreme, were carefully considered. However, a determination on whether these contentions have merit cannot be made because the facts and circumstances leading to the discharge are unknown. The burden of proof remains with the applicant to provide the appropriate documents such as the discharge packet or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration. Also, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. 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. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. Based on the available record, the discharge appears 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): None c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): None 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a travel panel hearing conducted in Warner Robins, GA on 27 February 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 AR20180009009 4