1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 25 June 2018 b. Date Received: 29 June 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, the discharge was inequitable, because the applicant was never counseled during the discharge process, nor being informed of rights, until applicant received the memorandum of discharge, which recommended a GD. The commander who downgraded the discharge never spoke with the applicant. The applicant has since learned, through researching, of the options to appeal. As a young Soldier, the applicant never had any leadership to follow. The applicant contends that the UOTH discharge was unduly harsh, considering the circumstances involved. An upgrade would allow the applicant to serve once more. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 8 July 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: NA / AR 135-178 / NA / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 31 March 2014 c. Separation Facts: The applicant's OMPF is void of the facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge. However, the following limited information were obtained from the applicant's submitted evidence: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 15 April 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason: The applicant failed to attend annual training, which are considered unsatisfactory participant. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 5 May 2011 / 8-year MSO (USAR) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 12K10, Plumber / 2 years, 10 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR (5 May 2011 to 31 July 2011 / NA IADT (1 August 2011 to 2 December 2011) / HD USAR (3 December 2011 - Continuous Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / NA f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Discharge Orders i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 25 June 2018; separation notification memorandum, dated 15 April 2013; self-authored statement; a supporting memorandum, dated 12 June 2018; and discharge Orders. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, in effect, he completed his schooling and have a decent employment. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 135-178 governs procedures covering enlisted personnel management of the Army Reserve. Chapter 12 provides, in pertinent part, that a Soldier is subject to discharge for unsatisfactory participation when it is determined that the Soldier is unqualified for further military service because: (1) The Soldier is an unsatisfactory participant as prescribed by AR 135-91; (2) Attempts to have the Soldier respond or comply with orders or correspondence have resulted in-(a) The Soldier's refusal to comply with orders or correspondence; (b) A notice sent by certified mail was refused, unclaimed, or otherwise undeliverable; and (c) Verification that the Soldier has failed to notify the command of a change of address and reasonable attempts to contact the Soldier have failed. Separation action may be taken when the Soldier cannot be located or is absent in the hands of civil authorities in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2-18 and chapter 3, section IV. Commanders will not take action prescribed in this chapter in lieu of disciplinary action solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious misconduct the harsher penalties that may be imposed under the UCMJ. Army Regulation135-91 states that a Soldier is an unsatisfactory participant when nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills acrue during a one-year period, and without proper authority, they fail to attend or complete the entire period of AD during annual training. The unit commander will determine if the Soldier was notified in enough time to comply with orders and whether there were compelling or emergency reasons for being absent. Army policy states possible characterizations of service include an honorable, general, under honorable conditions, under other than honorable conditions, or uncharacterized if the Soldier is in entry-level status. However, the permissible range of characterization varies based on the reason for separation. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant's available record of service, and 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 submitted evidence confirms that his 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. By his refusal to attend the annual training, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of his service. 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 in the US Army Reserve. The applicant's contentions about his discharge being inequitable, because he was never counseled during the discharge process, nor being informed of his rights, until he received the memorandum notifying him of his discharge, which had recommended a GD; the commander who downgraded his discharge never spoke with him; he never received any leadership guidance; and the UOTH discharge was unduly harsh considering the circumstances involved, were carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service and the merit of his issues. 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 sufficient evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service. The applicant's statement alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further sufficient evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. In consideration of the applicant's post-service accomplishments, the Board can find that his accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. The applicant contends that an upgrade would allow him to serve once more. However, at the time of discharge, the applicant received an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Army Regulation 601-280 stipulates that an under other than honorable conditions discharge constitutes a "nonwaivable" disqualification, thus the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. Based on the available 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 8 July 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 AR20180009444 1