1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 5 July 2018 b. Date Received: 9 July 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from bad conduct to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident. He served a four-month sentence in confinement, received a reduction in rank, forfeiture of pay, and involuntarily discharged. He did not receive competent legal counsel. He was 21 years old at the time of his misconduct. Another Soldier did not receive such a weighty sentence although he (other Soldier) was convicted of more severe violations. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 13 January 2021, 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: Court-Martial Other / AR 635-200, Chapter 3 / JJD / RE-4 / Bad-Conduct b. Date of Discharge: 22 December 2016 c. Separation Facts: NA (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NA (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was found guilty by a Special Court-Martial of the following offenses; intentionally expose, in an indecent manner, his genitalia (11 February 2015); and having knowledge of a lawful order issued by COL T.P.W., paragraph 6(d)(1), Policy Letter #10- Leadership Care for Soldiers / Families, Barracks Visitation, Command Visits to On-post / Off-post Quarters dated 3 October 2014, an order which it was his duty to obey, did fail to obey the same by wrongfully remaining inside the barracks room of PV2 R.V.C. past 2200 hours at or near Camp Carroll, South Korea (11 February 2015). On 11 May 2015, he was sentenced to be reduced to PVT / E-1, to be confined for four months and to be discharged from the service with a bad-conduct discharge. On 15 October 2015, the sentence was approved. The record of trial being forwarded to The US Army Court of Criminal Appeals for review; The US Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirming the approved findings of guilty and the sentence, the sentence being affirmed and Article 71(c) having been complied with, and the bad-conduct discharge being ordered to be executed; are not contained in the available record; and government regularity in the judicial process is presumed. (3) Recommended Characterization: NA (4) Legal Consultation Date: NA (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 22 December 2016 / Bad Conduct 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 19 February 2014 / 3 years, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 2 years, 6 months, 25 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: Military Confinement for 98 days, 11 May 2015 to 19 August 2015. Also, the applicant had 458 days of excess leave, 22 September 2015 to 22 December 2016. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); self-authored statement (two pages); DD Form 214; Special Court-Martial Order Number 3 (two pages); Certificate of Training; Birth Certificate; Permanent Change of Station Orders 191-3501; Personnel Action; Inmate's Release Order; and Discharge Orders 356-1310. 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 3, Section III establishes policy and procedures for separating members with a dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge; and provides a Soldier will be given a bad-conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial; and the appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the ADRB to be established facts, issues relating to the applicant's innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the ADRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from bad conduct to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant's available record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The Board is empowered to change the discharge only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. 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 not authenticated by the applicant's signature. This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and government regularity is presumed in the judicial process. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 3, Section III, by reason of court-martial, other, with a characterization of service of bad conduct. Barring evidence to the contrary, the presumption of government regularity prevails as all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Further, the DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of JJD (i.e., court-martial, other), with a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 4. The applicant seeks relief contending, his discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident. The available record of evidence record (Special Court-Martial Order) shows that the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant's numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant further contends, he served a four-month sentence in confinement, received a reduction in rank, forfeiture of pay, and involuntarily discharged. The available 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 applicant also contends, he did not receive competent legal counsel. The available record does not contain any evidence that during his court-martial proceedings he raised concern of inadequate legal counsel and the applicant did not provide any such evidence. The applicant additionally contends, he was 21 years old at the time of his misconduct. The available record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. Lastly, the applicant contends, another Soldier did not receive such a weighty sentence although he (other Soldier) was convicted of more severe violations. The method in which another Soldier's case was handled is not relevant to the applicant's case. Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it is his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. 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 that the applicant was provided full judicial due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 13 January 2021, 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 / 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 AR20180010715 1