1.	APPLICANT’S NAME:      

	a.	Application Date:  4 August 2014

	b.	Date Received:      10 November 2014

	c.	Counsel:                 None

2.   Request, Reason, Issues, Board Type, and Decision:  The applicant request an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general, under honorable conditions or honorable.  The applicant states, in effect, his characterization of service is inequitable.  He was never charged with any crime before the incident that led to his discharge.  He has been an outstanding citizen since his discharge from the Army.  A records review was conducted on
18 February 2008.  

In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, Virginia, on 24 August 2015, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board after carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and hearing his testimony, determined the characterization of service was too harsh based on the overall length and quality of the applicant’s service to include his combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e., it took the unit over a year and three chain of commands later to separate him), his post service accomplishments (i.e., earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees), and his testimony, mitigated the discrediting entry in the service record and as a result it is now inequitable.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority.  This action entails a restoration of grade to SPC/E-4.  This action does not entail a change to the reentry eligibility (RE) code.

	(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/Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.

	b.	Date of Discharge:  4 August 2006

	c.	Separation Facts:  

		(1)	Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 29 March 2006

		(2)	Basis for Separation:  The applicant was notified of the following reasons for his discharge; unlawfully entering the residence of K.F., with intent to assault him.

		(3)	Recommended Characterization:  UOTHC

		(4)	Legal Consultation Date:  11 May 2006, the applicant requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation board.




	(5)  Administrative Separation Board:  On 20 June 2006, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of his rights.

On 28 June 2006, the administrative separation board convened and the applicant appeared with counsel.  The board recommended the applicant’s discharge with characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.

		(6)	Separation Decision Date/Characterization:  19 July 2006/UOTHC

4.	SERVICE DETAILS:

	a.	Date/Period of Enlistment:  4 July 2003/4 years

	b.	Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score:  23 years/HS Graduate/98

	c.	Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service:  SPC/E-4/92G10, Food Service Operations/5 years, 6 months and 19 days
  
	d.	Prior Service/Characterizations:  16 January 2001-3 July 2003/HD
  
	e.	Overseas Service/Combat Service:  SWA/Iraq/28 February 2003-20 February 2004
  
	f.	Awards and Decorations:  ARCOM, AAM, AGCM, NDSM, ICM, GWOTSM, ASR
  
	g.	Performance Ratings:  None
  
	h.	Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record:  CG Article 15 dated 7 June 2005, for without authority, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x 2 on                22 March 2005 and 3 April 2005; and willfully disobeying a lawful order from Sergeant E.A., a noncommissioned officer x 2 on 24 March 2005 and 2 April 2005; reduced to PFC (E-3 suspended), forfeiture of $438 pay (suspended), extra duty for 14 days and an oral reprimand.

 	i.	Lost Time:  None
  
	j.	Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health:  None

5.	APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE:  A DD Form 293, applicant’s statement (three pages), eight character/support statements, college transcript data (eight pages), and a Capella University Transcript (two pages).

6.	POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS:  The applicant states he graduated from Austin Peay with an Associate’s Degree in construction and a Bachelor’s Degree in professional studies.  He is working toward a Master’s Degree at Capella University.  The applicant is employed by Wal-Mart distribution as the shipping manager.

7.	REGULATORY CITATION(S):  Chapter 14 allows for separation for misconduct with paragraph 14-1 allowing for separating personnel because of minor disciplinary infractions; a pattern of misconduct, commission of serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, or absence without leave.  Paragraph 14-2 states action will be taken to separate a Soldier for misconduct when it is clearly established that despite attempts to rehabilitate or develop him/her as a 

Soldier further effort is not likely to succeed; rehabilitation is impracticable or the Soldier is not amenable to rehabilitation.

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 ISSUE(S):  The applicant request an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general, under honorable conditions or honorable.  The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed.

The record confirms 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 marred the quality of his service by receiving an Article 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

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 seeking relief contends, his characterization of service is inequitable.  He was never charged with any crime before the incident that led to his discharge.  He has been an outstanding citizen since his discharge from the Army.

The applicant contends his characterization of service is inequitable.  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 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 his discharge is inequitable.

The applicant further contends he was never charged with any crime before the incident that led to his discharge. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization.  The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.

The applicant also contends he has been an outstanding citizen since his discharge from the Army.  The applicant is to be commended for his effort.  However, this contention is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued.

The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant’s performance.  They all recognize his good conduct before and 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 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 applicant’s post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined in documents with the application.

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 ACTION DIRECTED:

	a.	Issue a new DD-214:  		Yes

	b.	Change Characterization to:  	Honorable

	c.	Change Reason to:  			Secretarial Authority

	d.	SPD/RE Code Change to:  		No Change

	e.	Restoration to Grade:  		SPC/E-4


Authenticating Official:



COL, US ARMY
Presiding Officer 
Army Discharge Review Board







Legend:
AWOL - Absent Without Leave	GD - General Discharge	NA - Not applicable	 	SCM- Summary Court Martial
BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge	HS - High School	NIF - Not in File	SPCM - Special Court Martial
CG - Company Grade Article 15	HD - Honorable Discharge	OAD - Ordered to Active Duty	UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge  
CID - Criminal investigation Department	MP – Military Police	OMPF - Official Military Personnel File	UOTHC - Under Other Than  
FG - Field Grade	IADT – Initial Active Duty Training	RE - Reentry	                Honorable Conditions 	

ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

AR20140019904

1