1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 6 December 2018 b. Date Received: 10 December 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the CID investigation was closed prior to him being able to seek proper legal advice on how to handle the allegations made against him. The CID investigation was determined to be founded even though evidence beyond reasonable doubt required to make proper determination was not satisfied. He was given a general discharge even after investigation findings failed to prove that the allegations made against him actually took place and were true. The sworn statement made against him by his accuser was dishonest and fabricated. 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 with anxiety; Adult physical abuse, suspected, sequela; Partner Relational Problem. VA medical records contain DOD content only. The applicant is not service-connected from the VA. 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 28 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 2 November 2016 c. Separation Facts: No, partial documents submitted by the applicant. (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 11 October 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason for his discharge, he committed sexual contact upon SPC J.M. by hugging her, biting her on the shoulder, touching her inner thigh and abdomen, and kissing her on the mouth, without her consent between (4 September 2015 and 6 October 2015). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF, government regularity is presumed in the discharge process. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 29 July 2013 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 68W10, Health Care Specialist / 3 years, 3 months, 4 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The applicant received a negative counseling statement for being flagged. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); three employer / employee appreciations; AMHRR documents included the following documents; two flag documents, CID documents (eight pages), military protective order (two pages), sworn statement (SPC Z, three pages), sworn statement (J.M., five pages) and partial separation documents (five pages). 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. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. 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 digital signature. This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and government regularity is presumed in the discharge process. 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 general (under honorable conditions). 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 JKQ (i.e., misconduct, serious offense) with a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 3. The applicant seeks relief contending, the CID investigation was closed prior to him being able to seek proper legal advice on how to handle the allegations made against him; and the CID investigation was determined to be founded even though evidence beyond reasonable doubt required to make proper determination was not satisfied. 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 this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support these contentions that he was unjustly discharged. The applicant further contends, he was given a general discharge even after investigation findings failed to prove that the allegations made against him actually took place and were true. 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 character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. The applicant also contends, the sworn statement made against him by his accuser was dishonest and fabricated. The applicant bears the burden presenting substantial and credible evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that his accuser's sworn statement was dishonest and fabricated. 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 administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 28 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 AR20190000401 3