1. Applicant's Name:. a. Application Date: 8 August 2019 b. Date Received: 13 August 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he requests an upgrade due to false information from the military police on base and because his "unit commander for the correction of altercation of a pattern of misconduct". The applicant states, he his first disciplinary action was after he just arrived to the unit from basic and was scheduled for an appointment, which he missed because he was not aware of the status of the appointment. At the time, he was in reception and had no way to schedule or setup the appointment, had no transportation and did not even know where the site location was. When the applicant finally arrived to his unit, the chain of command said he had an Article 15. The applicant tried to submit proof, which his staff sergeant submitted to his superiors, but they denied his proof. The applicant was told if he did not accept the Article 15, would be given an under honorable discharge. The applicant states, he submitted a letter to the board where the other Soldier with the assault case was, but he had relatives on board and the letter was denied. The cases were typed and written by the Sergeant Major and not the Commander because the commander was new to the jurisdiction. The applicant states the Sergeant Major already had the punishment prewritten and was as if the Sergeant Major would punish him and the command would just sign closure form. The applicant lost his rank, even from being a specialist promotable to a private, who was barely able to pay his bills. The applicant states he had massive frustration of being out of a career and wanted to stay in and enjoy serving his fellow people and country. He did not expect this to happen for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The applicant lost his car and other valuable possessions and he was sending money back home to his family in Louisiana and Mississippi for support. His family was dealing with floods, tornadoes and other natural disasters he was paying for death expenses. The applicant also paid the costs of a handful of his close relatives and friends due to weather conditions. The applicant was not able to send any funds home for food nor medical payments and because of the disciplinary action taking by his chain of command. The applicant told his chain of command about the situation he had been going through, but he was denied. The applicant states the second offense was from an altercation caused by a previous Soldier, who made a false statement that he was jumped and attacked by more than one person. The applicant states, his personal space was violated because the applicant asked the Soldier what problem he had with another Soldier in the unit. The applicant used the direct approach method as taught by the military about confronting such behavior, which resulted in the applicant being attacked. The applicant states there were witnesses, who said the applicant did not start the altercation and the E-5 and E-6, who were on duty, also said it was not the applicant. The other Soldier received favoritism and had prior Soldiers, who were not at the incident, tell the Military Police they were not in the incident, but the other Soldier was jumped. Their chain of command over both the applicant and the other Soldier, overturned the other Soldier's UCMJ and discharged the applicant. The other Soldier was not discharged and is still in service. The other Soldier had prior Soldiers and retirees from service, in his legal proceedings and at the board. The applicant state that under no means did he want to get out the military at that time during his service contract. The applicant wanted to serve his term and do more than just enough in his military career. The applicant did not join for benefits rather to make a better impact on today's society, tomorrow's future and to protect his country and neighboring lands from any harm and dangers. The applicant states, he is unable to get any government official jobs or schooling, which he wants to establish in his journey to success in his lifetime. The applicant tried to enlist in other military services and the National Guard, but after the discovery of his discharge, he was quickly turned away. The applicant has been staying on the streets and currently lives with a relative and is single now because his wife left him because he was unable to find work of any sort. Temp Agencies have told him because of the pattern of misconduct from his service, they were not able to hire him. The applicant states, he barely has anything to his name after his discharge because no employer wants to employ him. The applicant had the best intentions and good will and apologizes for the inconvenience of his discharge. An upgrade would at least give him and his daughter a better life and he tries his best to be a blessing to those who come in and out of his life. The applicant believes he was taken advantage of at the time, because he was not aware of what he was being told, even though he signed the documents. The applicant was young and learned his lesson from the past. Now he is trying to put his best foot forward even after being out the service. He had filed numerous of EO complaints, but nothing was done with those statements and he was brushed off when he went to the office for help and during field training. The applicant had doors slammed in his face when he provided exclusive evidence submitted on all the cases. The applicant was not judged by the facts or his work ethic, but by the color, appearance, favoritism, and position of power. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 23 September 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 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 18 September 2017 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: 1 March 2016 / 3 years, 18 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 89 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 88M10, Motor Transport Operator / 1 years, 7 months, 9 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: Law Enforcement Report - Final, dated 23 March 2017, reflects and investigation established that the applicant was involved in a physical altercation on 21 March 2017. The applicant and the other Soldier, were advised of their legal rights, which they waived rendering written statements admitting to assault. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Three DD Forms 293; picture of his ID; two copies of sworn statements; self-authored statement. 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 14-12b 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. 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, 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 14-12b, by reason of Pattern of Misconduct, with a characterization of service of General (Under 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 his punishment was prewritten by his sergeant major, was 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 that he was young and immature at the time of the discharge. The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The applicant contends that he was discriminated against by members of his chain of command; however, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant contends the other Soldier involved in the incident that led to his discharge was not discharged. However, the method in which another Soldier's case was handled is not relevant to the applicant's case. Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case. The applicant contends that he had good service. 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 applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be 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 23 September 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 AR20190013218 5