1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 18 January 2019 b. Date Received: 22 January 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of an under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the separation was due to a request for discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court- Martial. The request was to be split by the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate (OSJA) into two requests and was acted on before the start of the first court-martial, which resulted in a full acquittal. The applicant states, the 101st OSJA then used the second Chapter 10 request, with the chain of command recommendations from the initial request and was staffed to the Commanding General for approval, resulting in discharge. The applicant states, the 101st OSJA withheld information of alleged misconduct against their lead witness, which would have influenced the applicant's decision to submit a request for discharge, had the applicant been informed upon their discovery request, prior to the trials. The applicant only learned of the violation some six months after discharge. 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/ with depressed mood, Alcohol Dependence, Alcohol Induced Insomnia, and Depression. VA records only contain DoD content. 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 personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 15 July 2019, and by a 3-2 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635- 200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 29 March 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): On 30 September 2016, the applicant was charged with: Charge I: three specifications of violating Article 128, UCMJ, for: Specification 1: The applicant, did, at or near Clarksville, Tennessee, on or about 4 June 2016, commit an assault upon Ms. B S by choking her and pushing her down on the stairs with a force likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm, to wit: choking Ms. B S with his hands and pushing her down on the stairs; Specification 2: The applicant, did, at or near Clarksville, Tennessee, on or about 4 June 2016, unlawfully strike Ms. B S in the face with his hand; and, Specification 3: The applicant, did, at or near Clarksville, Tennessee, on or about 4 June 2016, unlawfully strike Ms. B S in the face with a door. Charge II: Violation of Article 134, UCMJ, in that the applicant did was, at or near Clarksville, Tennessee, on or about 4 June 2016, was drunk and disorderly, such conduct being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. NOTE: The above mentioned charges were adjudicated in a Special Court Martial convened on 08 March 2017, during which the applicant was found Not Guilty on all Charges and Specifications. On 6 February 2017, the applicant was charged with two specifications of violating Article 107, UCMJ, for: Specification l: the applicant, did, at or near Fort Bragg, North Carolina, on or about 10 April 2012, with intent to deceive, sign an official document, to wit: DA Form 3286, which document was false in that he had been arrested, cited, charged and held by law enforcement authorities, and was then known by the applicant to be so false. Specification 2: the applicant, did, at or near Fort Campbell, Kentucky, on or about 9 March 2015, with intent to deceive, sign an official document, to wit: DA Form 3286, which document was false in that he had been arrested, cited, charged and held by law enforcement authorities, and was then known by the applicant to be so false. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 3 March 2017 (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. (4) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (5) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 15 March 2017 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 9 March 2015 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 / HS Graduate / 116 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 27D10, Paralegal Specialist / 8 years, 2 months, 16 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 14 January 2009 - 9 April 2012 / HD RA, 10 April 2012 - 8 March 2015 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (13 April 2013 - 26 October 2013); Qatar (1 August 2010 - 26 January 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM-2, JSAM, AAM, JMUA, VUA, ASUA, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR-2, ASR, NATOMDL, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 28 June 2014 - 27 June 2015 / Fully Capable 28 June 2015 - 18 April 20165 / Highly Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge sheets as described in previous paragraph 3c. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Chapter 10 request for reconsideration and all listed attachments. 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 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Army policy states that although an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable conditions. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. The applicant, in consultation with legal counsel voluntarily requested, in writing, a discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense, and he indicated he understood he could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veterans' benefits. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. His record documents no acts of significant achievement or valor and did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority at the time of discharge. The applicant contends the OSJA withheld information of alleged misconduct against their lead witness, which would have influenced his decision to submit a request for discharge. 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 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. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): Email Correspondence - 1 Page b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): None c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): None 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 15 July 2019, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 11. 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 AR20190001910 3