1.	APPLICANT’S NAME:  

	a.	Application Date:  26 June 2014

	b.	Date Received:  14 July 2014

	c.	Counsel:  None

2.   REQUEST, REASON, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests to upgrade the characterization of his discharge from general, under honorable conditions to honorable.  The applicant states, in pertinent part and in effect, he received a general, under honorable conditions discharge because his ex-wife lied about him breaking a no-contact order which caused him to receive an Article 15.  He was also informed that his discharge would be automatically upgraded after six months.  

In a records review conducted at Arlington, Virginia, on 11 September 2015, 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:  Physical Standards / AR 635-200, Paragraph 13-2e / JFT / RE-3 / General, Under Honorable Conditions

	b.	Date of Discharge:  15 November 2013

	c.	Separation Facts:  

		(1)	Date of Notification of Intent to Separate:  24 October 2013

		(2)	Basis for Separation:  The applicant was informed that the basis for initiating action to separate him was for failing two consecutive Army Physical Fitness Tests.  

		(3)	Recommended Characterization:  General, Under Honorable Conditions discharge

		(4)	Legal Consultation Date:  24 October 2013

		(5)	Administrative Separation Board:  None

		(6)	Separation Decision Date/Characterization:  Undated / General, Under Honorable Conditions discharge

4.	SERVICE DETAILS:

	a.	Date/Period of Enlistment:  22 March 2011 / 3 years, 20 weeks

	b.	Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score:  30 / Associate’s Degree / 123

	c.	Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service:  E-3 / 13D10, Field Artillery Automated Tactical Data Systems Specialist / 2 years, 7 months, 24 days
  
	d.	Prior Service/Characterizations:  None
  
	e.	Overseas Service/Combat Service:  None / None
  
	f.	Awards and Decorations:  NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR
  
	g.	Performance Ratings:  None
  
	h.	Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record:  

	FG Article 15, dated 22 October 2013, for failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 6 May 2013 and 7 June 2013, and disobeying his superior commissioned officer on 22 September 2013.  The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $758 pay per month for two months (suspended), and 45 days of extra duty.
	Negative counseling statements for separation proceedings under Chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance; failing the APFT test multiple times; and failing APFT on 10 July 2013, 21 May 2013, and 5 April 2013. 
	
	i.	Lost Time:  None
  
	j.	Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health:  Mental health issues noted in report of mental status evaluation; report of medical examination; report of medical history; and report of medical assessment. 

	Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 30 July 2013, indicates the applicant was diagnosed with AXIS I, adjustment disorder with anxiety “(per AHLTA).”

5.	APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE:  E-mail correspondence, dated 25 June 2014

6.	POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS:  None provided

7.	REGULATORY CITATION(S):  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13-2e states in pertinent part, that separation proceedings will be initiated for Soldiers without medical limitations that have two consecutive failures of the Army Physical Fitness Test.  The reason for discharge will be shown as physical standards.  

The service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance for failure to meet physical standards will be characterized as honorable or general, under honorable conditions.

8.	DISCUSSION OF ISSUE(S):  The applicant requests to upgrade the characterization of his discharge from general, under honorable conditions to honorable.  

The applicant’s record of service, and the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed.

The record confirms the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because of the unsatisfactory performance which diminished the quality of his service.  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.  

The applicant seeks relief contending he received a general, under honorable conditions discharge because his ex-wife lied about him breaking a no-contact order which caused him to receive an Article 15.  He was also informed that his discharge would be automatically upgraded after six months. 

The applicant contends the discharge was unjust because his discharge was based on his wife lying about him breaking a no-contact order which caused him to receive an Article 15.  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 sufficient evidence to support the contention that he may have been unjustly discharged.  The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or sufficient evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge.  

The applicant’s issue about being informed of an automatic upgrade based on the time that has elapsed since the discharge was carefully considered.  However, the US Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 293 requesting a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines the characterization of service or the reasons for discharge, or both, were improper or inequitable.

In view of the above, 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 ACTION DIRECTED:

	a.	Issue a new DD-214/:  			No

	b.	Change Characterization to:  		No Change

	c.	Change Reason to:  				No Change

	d.	Change SPD/RE Code to:  			No Change

	e.	Restore (Restoration of) Grade to:  	NA


AUTHENTICATING OFFICIAL:  




COL, US ARMY
Presiding Officer
Army Discharge Review Board
























Legend:
AWOL - Absent Without Leave	GD - General Discharge	NIF - Not in File	SPCM - Special Court Martial 
BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge	HS - High School		OAD - Ordered to Active Duty	SPD - Separation Program Designator
CG - Company Grade Article 15	HD - Honorable Discharge	OMPF - Official Military Personnel File	TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury
CID - Criminal Investigation Division	MP – Military Police	PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder	UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge  
ELS – Entry Level Status	IADT – Initial Active Duty Training	RE - Reentry	UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
FG - Field Grade Article 15	NA - Not applicable	SCM - Summary Court Martial	

ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

AR20140012441


1