1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 21 November 2018 b. Date Received: 30 November 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 is inequitable "due to alternative solutions" and also, was informed the applicant would not be separated from the military about a month prior to discharge. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 20 March 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 3 January 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 14 November 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 18 October 2013, the applicant received a company grade Article 15 for multiple incidents of failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time, failing to obey a lawful general regulation, and being derelict in the performance of his duties between 1 September 2013 and 8 October 2013. Since receiving the Article 15, the applicant continued to display the pattern of misconduct with multiple incidents of failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time and failing to obey a lawful general regulation. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: Waived, 15 November 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 9 December 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 February 2013 / 3 years, 25 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 101 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: 91B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic / 10 months, 14 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Counseling statements for missing post in-processing; for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on multiple occasions; not being recommended for promotion; lacking motivation, planning, and willingness to do the right thing; failing to shave on several occasions; not being in proper uniform; and not maintaining his barracks room. CG Article 15, dated 18 October 2013, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on seven separate occasions on 1 September 2013, 17 September 2013, 25 September 2017, 3 October 2013, 4 October 2013, 5 October 2013, and 8 October 2013; failing to obey a lawful general regulation on two separate occasions on 3 October 2013 and 4 October 2013; and being derelict in the performance of his duties on 7 October 2013. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $353, and 14 days of extra duty and restriction. FG Article 15, dated 13 November 2013, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on two separate occasions on 23 October 2013 and 24 October 2013, failing to obey a lawful general regulation on 24 October 2013. The punishment consisted of 45 days of extra duty (suspended). Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 29 October 2013, providing an "AXIS I" diagnosis of "Sleep Disorder, Occupational Problem," psychiatrically cleared the applicant for chapter separation. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 21 November 2018. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided 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 14-12b addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 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 "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, pattern of misconduct. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKA" 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 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 pattern of misconduct, 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 discharge was unjust because of equity issues "due to alternative solutions" and being previously informed that he would not be separated from the military. 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 any 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 evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. 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 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 20 March 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 AR20190000354 1