1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 22 August 2018 b. Date Received: 29 August 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his uncharacterized discharge to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge was improper because it was based on racial discrimination and coercion. From the beginning of the training, he encountered racial profiling and harassment for being a foreign national. The constant verbal abuse, humiliation and insults in the form of racial slurs from his fellow Soldiers and others effected his emotional well-being. The applicant was emotionally traumatized by these experiences, which led to other health problems (inflammation of his glands). In spite of all these issues, the applicant continued to train and perform his duties because he sincerely wanted to serve the nation. When he tried to report the abuse to his superiors it was not taken seriously and instead he was coerced to sign the withdrawal documents. The applicant was also not provided any access to the counsel/JAG in spite of his repeated requests. The applicant was not allowed to contact his country embassy for any kind of help/assistance. The applicant was forced and coerced into signing the withdrawal documents, it was not his intention to withdraw from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 9 December 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: Erroneous Entry / AR 635-200 / Chapter 7, SEC III / JFC / RE-3 / Uncharacterized b. Date of Discharge: 17 June 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: The notification of initiation of separation proceedings is void from the applicant's service record. The applicant provided a copy of the Commander's Report, which reflects the specific reason for separation: On 20 May 2014, the applicant was counseled and recommended for separation from the Army for withdrawing his naturalization paperwork, which he agreed to submit to become enlisted member of the military. (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 20 May 2014, the applicant waived his rights to consult with a JAG officer. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 15 April 2014 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 31 / Bachelor's Degree / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / None / 2 months, 3 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: None g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; DA Form 4700; case separation documents. 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 7, paragraph 7-15 provides, in pertinent part, that a Soldier may be separated on the basis of an erroneous enlistment, induction, or extension of enlistment per guidance in Chapter 1, section II. For the purpose of Chapter 7, the term enlistment means both an original enlistment and any subsequent enlistments (re-enlistments). Soldiers separated under this paragraph will be awarded an honorable character of service or order of release from custody and control of the Army unless an uncharacterized description of service is required for Soldiers in entry-level status under chapter 3, section II. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his uncharacterized discharge to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). 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 7, Section III, by reason of Erroneous Entry, with a characterization of service of Uncharacterized. 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. Further, the uncharacterized description of service accurately reflects the applicant's overall record of service. An uncharacterized discharge is neither positive nor negative and it is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier's military service. It merely means that the Soldier has not been in the Army long enough for his or her character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise. The applicant's contentions about being forced to sign his withdrawal from the Army, was carefully considered. However, 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. The applicant contends that he was discriminated by his fellow Soldiers; however, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant contends he was emotionally traumatized. However, the service record contains no evidence of emotional trauma diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. The applicant contends he was not afforded the opportunity to seek legal counsel. However, the 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 character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be 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 administrative due 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 9 December 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 / 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 AR20180013617 1