1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 9 August 2018 b. Date Received: 10 August 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, less than an honorable discharge brings great shame to his name and character. He wants to take advantage of the benefits that come with an honorable discharge. If he had done a better job representing himself at the time, he may have received an honorable discharge. He does not recall having his election of rights to an attorney or representation. He would have chosen to have legal representation to help him navigate the Army's legal system because he did not understand how to do so on his own. Since leaving the Army, he has done things to rewrite these unhealthy habits and have not drank or gambled in years. A prior records review was conducted at Arlington, VA on 12 February 2014. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review in the service record, AHLTA, and JLV, the applicant was diagnosed with the behavioral health conditions of Alcohol Dependence, Pathological Gambling and Depression. However, due to the nature of the behavioral health conditions, they do not mitigate the offenses. In a Travel Panel hearing conducted at Sacramento, CA on 19 September 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: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 608-8-24, Paragraphs 4-2b / JNC / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 24 June 2013 c. Separation Facts: No (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 28 September 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was required to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2a substandard performance and paragraph-4-2b because of misconduct, moral or professional dereliction. The facts and circumstances which led to the applicant's discharge are not contained in the available record. However, the facts and circumstances from the previous records review revealed he was notified of the following reasons: he received a GOMOR dated 3 July 2012, for being arrested by the Comanche Nation Police at the Comanche Nation Casino because he was heavily intoxicated and acting unprofessionally, to include harassing one of the patrons. he received a GOMOR dated 23 July 2012, for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, both GOMORs were filed in his OMPF. On 13 December 2012, the applicant was again notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2a, substandard performance and 4-2b, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction. The show cause reasons were the same as on 28 September 2012. (3) Recommended Characterization: The Commanding General; Headquarters, United States Army Fires Center of Excellence and Fort Sill, Fort Sill, Oklahoma, recommended the applicant's discharge from the Army with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). (4) Legal Consultation Date: The applicant's election of rights is not contained in the available record. 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. On 7 January 2013, the applicant submitted a rebuttal statement to his elimination packet and requested to be retained in the Army. (5) Administrative Separation Board/BOI: The applicant was a probationary officer and therefore not entitled a BOI. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: The Department of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board reviewed the probationary officer elimination case (on the applicant) based on misconduct and moral or professional dereliction. On 22 May 2013, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board and directed the applicant's discharge with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 June 2011 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 years / College Graduate / NA c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-1 / None / 6 years, 11 months, 11 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, USMA Prep School, 14 July 2006 to 23 February 2007 / HD Break In Service USAR (Cadet), 1 September 2007 to 6 May 2011 / NA USAR, Appointment 2LT, 7 May 2011 to 7 June 2011 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: A CID Report of Investigation, dated 7 June 2012, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for wrongful sexual contact. An administrative General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 3 July 2012, for being arrested by the Comanche Nation Police at the Comanche Nation Casino because he was heavily intoxicated and acting unprofessionally, to include harassing one of the patrons. An administrative GOMOR, dated 23 July 2012, for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages). 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interest of national security. A discharge of honorable, general, or under other than honorable conditions characterization of service may be granted. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JNC" as the appropriate code to assign officer Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b, unacceptable conduct. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant's record of service and the issues 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 Army officers. It brought discredit on the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant' unacceptable conduct diminished the quality of his service below meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. The applicant provided no corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the unacceptable conduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant requests a change to the narrative reason for separation. Army Regulation 635- 5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JNC" as the appropriate code to assign officer Soldiers, who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b, unacceptable conduct. The regulation further stipulates no deviation is authorized. The applicant seeks relief contending, his less than an honorable discharge brings great shame to his name and character; and since leaving the Army, he has done things to rewrite these unhealthy habits and have not drank or gambled in years These contentions are not matters upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because they raise no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor or they associated with the discharge at the time it was issued. The applicant further contends, he wants to take advantage of the benefits that come with an honorable discharge. 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 applicant also contends, if he had done a better job representing himself at the time, he may have received an honorable discharge. The rationale the applicant provided as the basis for what he believes was an unfair discharge is not supportable by the evidence contained in the record and can only be viewed as speculative in nature. The applicant additionally contends, he does not recall having his election of rights to an attorney or representation. The applicant's election of rights is not contained in the available record and government regularity is presumed in the discharge process. Furthermore, the applicant contends, he would have chosen to have legal representation to help him navigate the Army's legal system because he did not understand how to do so on his own. In a receipt of notification of elimination action, dated 18 December 2012, the applicant understood that he would be given the opportunity to with legal counsel and he must contact Trial Defense Service to make an appointment. The record does not indicate that he made an appointment. 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): None. b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): None. c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a Travel Panel hearing conducted at Sacramento, CA on 19 September 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 AR20180010490 1