1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 3 December 2018 b. Date Received: 10 December 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a narrative reason change to retirement. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the garrison commander at the time of his separation, signed off on his retirement. The applicant was then sent to a separation board and was twice extended past his ETS date to serve time lost to be made good. 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. The applicant is 70% service connected for PTSD. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with PTSD. In summary, the applicant does not have a BH diagnosis that is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 14 October 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 16 November 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 16 June 2008 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 28 / Bachelor's Degree / 106 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 88M30, Motor Transport Operator / 20 years, 11 months, 25 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 2 July 1997 - 13 August 2000 / HD RA, 14 August 2000 - 11 September 2002 / HD RA, 12 September 2002 - 21 July 2005 / HD RA, 22 July 2005 - 15 June 2008 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska, Germany, Korea, SWA / Afghanistan (15 May 2009 - 7 March 2010; 5 December 2011 - 4 October 2012; 28 February 2014 - 12 October 2014); Iraq (4 May 2003 - 4 August 2004) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-7; AAM-2; NATOMDL; VUA; AGCM-5; NDSM; GWOTEM; GWOTSM; KDSM; ACM-2CS; NCOPDR-2; ASR; OSR-5; CAB g. Performance Ratings: 1 February 2008 - 31 January 2009 / Among The Best 1 February 2009 - 31 January 2010 / Fully Capable 31 January 2010 - 30 January 2011 / Fully Capable 31 January 2011 - 30 January 2012 / Among The Best 31 January 2012 - 30 January 2013 / Fully Capable 31 January 2013 - 30 January 2014 / Fully Capable 31 January 2014 - 13 January 2015 / Marginal 13 January 2015 - 12 January 2016 / Highly Qualified 13 January 2016 - 11 January 2017 / Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 13 January 2015, for failing to obey a lawful general regulation by wrongfully sending inappropriate and unwanted messages of sexual nature to SGT N. O. to wit: "SGT O. you have a bangin ass body and nice lips," "if I knew that I would been all over your sweet lip sexy self," "I would have been giving you foot massages and everything," "I didn't say u was dumb u fine ass fuck tho" or words to that effect (between 8 and 18 October 2014); and, for failing to obey a lawful general regulation by wrongfully sending inappropriate and unwanted messages of sexual nature to SPC J. R., to wit: "you are so hot," "I never seen anyone smile all the time like you and you have a perfect pretty smile" or words to that effect (between 15 September and 5 October 2014). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-5; forfeiture of $1,562 pay (suspended); and, extra duty a for 45 days (suspended). Special Court-Martial Order Number 5, dated 23 June 2017, the applicant was arraigned on the following offenses: Charge I: Article 91. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. The Specification: Having received a lawful order from Command Sergeant Major S.H., a superior noncommissioned officer, then known by the applicant to be a superior noncommissioned officer, to step out of his vehicle, an order which it was his duty to obey, did at or near Fort Bragg, North Carolina, on or about 29 April 2016, willfully disobey the same. [Before Pleas the military judge granted an unopposed motion by the Trial counsel to amend Charge I and its Specification striking the word "superior" twice]. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Charge II: A1ticle 120a. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Dismissed. Charge III: Article 134. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Specification 1: Did, at or near Kandahar, Afghanistan, on or about 8 October 2014, in writing communicate to Sergeant N.O., certain indecent language, to wit: "SGT N.O. you have a bangin ass body and nice lips" or words to that effect, such conduct being to the prejudice of the good order and discipline in the armed forces and of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. [After arraignment but before pleas, the Military Judge granted an unopposed motion by the Trial counsel to amend Specifications 1, 2, and 3 of Charge III striking the words "and of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces"]. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Specification 2: Did, at or near Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, on or about 10 October 2014, in writing communicate to Corporal L.L.L., certain indecent language, to wit: "Just flew in last nite wanna know can I get some pussy from you before I leave?" or words to that effect, such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces and of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. [After arraignment but before pleas, the Military Judge granted an unopposed motion by the Trial counsel to amend Specifications 1, 2; and 3 or Charge III striking the words "and of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces"]. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Specification 3: Did, at or near Fort Bragg, North Carolina, on 1 about 29 April 2016, orally communicate to First Lieutenant S.A, certain indecent language, to wit: "nice tits," or words to that effect, such conduct being to the prejudice of the good order and discipline in the armed forces and of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. [After arraignment but before pleas, the Military Judge granted an unopposed motion by the Trial counsel to amend Specifications 1, 2, and 3 of Charge III striking the words "and of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces"]. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Sentence adjudged on 25 January 2017: To be reduced to Private (E-2), to be confined for six (6) months, and to be discharged from the service with a Bad-Conduct discharge. On 23 June 2017, only so much of the sentence as provides for reduction to Private (E-2) and confinement for 179 days was approved and would be executed. Personnel Action form, reflects the applicant's duty status changed from "Confined by Military Authorities (CMA)" to "Present for Duty (PDY)," effective 15 June 2017. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 139 days (CMA, 25 January 2017 - 14 June 2017) / Released from confinement j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; DD Form 214; extract AR 635-200; DA Form 2339; DA Form 4187; DA Form 1506; two DA Forms 31; Request for Waiver (memo); Enlisted Record Brief; Retirement Prep document. 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 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general (under honorable conditions) or an honorable discharge may be granted. Paragraph 14-12c states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable and a narrative reason change. 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 14, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of Misconduct (Serious Offense), with a characterization of service of Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. 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. The applicant's contentions about having his retirement signed by the garrison commander and then had to appear before a separation board, were 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 he was held twice beyond his ETS date. 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. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed to retirement. However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is "JKQ"." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. Further, the applicant's requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of this Board. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. 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. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 14 October 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 AR20190000054 4