1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 5 March 2019 b. Date Received: 11 March 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant did not state any issues of propriety or equity for the Board's consideration. The applicant provided evidence demonstrating the applicant had good service and post-service conduct. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 4 February 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-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 22 December 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 26 October 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He was found guilty of larceny of U.S. Currency, a value in excess of $500.00, the property of Credit First National Association. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 26 October 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 26 October 2011, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of his case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 2 December 2011 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 21 March 2009 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 / GED / 97 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 12N10, Horizontal Construction Specialist / 5 years, 2 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 21 October 2006 - 24 October 2007 / HD IADT, 30 January 2007 - 18 June 2007 / UNC (Concurrent Service) RA, 25 October 2007 - 20 March 2009 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (14 April 2008 - 6 April 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-2CS, ARCOM, AAM-2, AGCM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Mental Status Evaluation, dated 2 March 2011, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible with clear a thinking process and was able to distinguish from right and wrong. Offer To Plead Guilty, dated 17 August 2011, reflects the applicant offered to plead guilty to Charge I and its Specifications; and, to Charge II and its Specifications. The applicant agreed to: Waive any objection to the Summary Court Martial Officer considering all documents contained in the papers accompanying the charge sheet and agree no foundation need be laid to introduce such documents. Waive personal appearance of any out-of-state witnesses, but reserved the right to call sentencing witnesses telephonically or via written communication, if available. Waive any right to a hearing before an administrative separation board (IAW AR 635-200) as it relates to an administrative separation initiated and/or approved with a characterization of service or description of separation of other than honorable. Provide truthful testimony regarding any information he may have in any judicial or administrative proceeding against SPC B. T. Meet with government counsel to discuss his testimony in preparation for trial. The applicant would receive testimonial immunity for any statements he makes as a witness at SPC X.'s trial. In exchange for the applicant's actions as stated above, the Convening Authority agreed to take the action consistent with Appendix I to the Offer to Plead Guilty. Report of result of Trial, reflects the applicant was tried in a Summary Court-Martial on 20 October 2011. The summary of offenses, pleas and findings: Charge I: Eight specifications, violation of Article 121, UCMJ: steal U.S. Currency of a value in excess of $500.00, the property of Credit First National Association. Between 15 and 18 June 2010, guilty consistent with the plea; Between 21 and 24 June 2010, guilty consistent with the plea; Between 3 and 6 July 2010, guilty consistent with the plea; Between 10 and 13 July 2010, guilty consistent with the plea; Between 17 and 20 July 2010, guilty consistent with the plea; Between 20 and 23 July 2010, guilty consistent with the plea; Between 27 and 30 July 2010, guilty consistent with the plea; and, Between 3 and 6 August 2010, guilty consistent with the plea; Charge II: two specifications, violation of Article 81, UCMJ: Specification 1: the applicant, on divers occasions between on or about 15 June 2010 and on or about 6 August 2010, conspire with SPC B. T., to commit an offense under the UCMJ, to wit: larceny of U.S. Currency of a value in excess of $500.00, the property of Credit First National Association, and in order to effect the object of the conspiracy the applicant provided his secure account information and on-line logon information to SPC B. T., for the purpose of transferring the property of Credit First National Association to the credit accounts of the applicant. Guilty consistent with the plea. Specification 2: the applicant, on divers occasions between on or about 1 August 2010 and on or about 15 August 2010, conspire with PFC D. C., and SPC B. T., to commit an offense under the UCMJ, to wit: larceny of U.S. Currency of a value in excess of $500.00, the property of Credit First National Association, and in order to effect the object of the conspiracy the applicant provided PFC D. C.'s secure account information and on-line logon information to the said SPC B. T., for the purpose of transferring the property of Credit First National Association to the credit accounts of PFC D. C. Guilty consistent with the plea. Sentence: Reduction to E-1; and, forfeiture $978.40 pay for one month. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 3 days, (AWOL, 29 October 2007 - 31 October 2007) / NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; four third party statements; two DA Forms 4856; résumé. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant provided evidence that he has obtained employment; volunteers in his community; and, is pursuing his degree. 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 his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents 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. 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 that he had good service which included a combat tour. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended for his accomplishments. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. They all recognize his good conduct after leaving the Army; however, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. 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 4 February 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 AR20190005917 2