1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 11 August 2018 b. Date Received: 16 August 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 pertinent part and in effect, the discharge was inequitable due to an isolated event with no further infractions, nor issues interfering with the career or advancement in the US Army. The applicant was the top of the class and served as a squad leader for abilities to adapt and overcome situations in the field. In basic training, while working as a team, a battle buddy made a bad decision to bring alcohol into training site. When the applicant woke up the morning of softball practice, the applicant found the battle buddy passed out drunk with liquor bottles on the desk. The applicant placed the battle buddy in bed and cleaned up the room, but mistakenly did not report the problems to the cadre, or help the battle buddy seek help for problems with alcohol. After practice, when the applicant reported to the first sergeant's office, where the applicant was made a spectacle of by the first sergeant walking the applicant down the hallway shouting, "I got you now, your ass is mine!" A fellow E-8 stopped and told the First Sergeant to calm down and that the First Sergeant was being unprofessional. When the applicant asked the E-8 to write a statement on the applicant's behalf, the applicant was told that E-8s do not snitch on each other. Despite making a congressional inquiry, the applicant was unjustly discharged. The applicant felt being cheated of a career that he was very much prepared to die for. 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 Adjustment Disorder and Adjustment Insomnia. The VA has diagnosed the applicant with Borderline Personality Disorder. In summary, the applicant's BH diagnoses are not mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 15 January 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: Unsatisfactory Performance / AR 635- 200, Chapter 13 / JHJ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 22 July 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 11 July 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Since the applicant's arrival to AIT, he has disobeyed battalion policy, specifically by purchasing alcohol while in uniform, having alcohol in the battalion footprint, and consuming alcohol in the barracks. The applicant was also the subject of a 15-6 Investigation which began when he, being a married Soldier, told other IET Soldiers that he was involved in a relationship with a cadre member. During the course of the investigation, the applicant provided inconsistent statements to the Investigating Officer. In the short time that the applicant has been in AIT, he has been a constant disruption and the subject of two separate investigations. The seriousness of the circumstances, are of such a matter that retaining him, would have an adverse impact on good order and discipline. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: Waived, 12 July 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 12 July 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 13 October 2010 / 3 years, 35 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 27 / HS Graduate / 114 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / None / 9 months, 10 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / None f. Awards and Decorations: None g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Counseling statements for being recommended for an involuntary separation due to the applicant's continued acts of unsatisfactory performance, inability to follow policies, and his failure to perform to standard; having alcohol in the barracks; breaking the battalion commander's policy letter; pass privileges being reduced; being investigated for allegations of an inappropriate relationship; being a high risk Soldier; and losing his military identification card. Memorandum, dated 2 May 2011, subject: Legal Review of Informal AR 15-6 Investigation (inappropriate relationship), indicates the investigation conducted was legally sufficient. DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer) with its associated documents, reported the findings and recommendations on 3 May 2011, resulting from the allegations of fraternization between an instructor and the applicant. Report of Medical History, dated 6 June 2011, indicates the examiner noted the applicant's treatment for behavioral health issues. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 15 June 2011, providing no diagnosis, psychiatrically cleared the applicant for administrative disposition. FG Article 15, dated 28 June 2011, for disobeying a lawful order on 19 May 2011, by wrongfully possessing alcohol in the battalion footprint. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $733 pay per month for two months, and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Any diagnosis NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 11 August 2018, and a character reference statement. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this Chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. Army policy states that a general, under honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, an honorable discharge may be granted in meritorious cases. 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 "JHJ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, Unsatisfactory Performance. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JHJ" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 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, and the issues and document submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms that 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. By the unsatisfactory performance, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and marred the quality of his service that ultimately caused his discharge from the Army. 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 contends the incident that caused his discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated event with no further infractions, nor any issues interfering with his career or advancement in the US Army. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant contends his discharge was unjust, because a first sergeant behaved unprofessionally as witnessed by another E-8, who would not provide a statement on his (the applicant's) behalf, and although he made a congressional inquiry, he was discharged. 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 his issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further sufficient evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. The third party statement provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's character. However, the persons providing the character reference statement was not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, the statement does not provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. 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 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 15 January 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 AR20180011829 3