1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 24 March 2015 b. Date Received: 27 May 2015 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 would like an upgrade of his discharge for the purposes of helping with his attempts to serve his country as a civilian contractor in Afghanistan. He contends he did well while in the Army and had some miscommunication with his command. He accepts full responsibility for his actions, but indicates he joined at a time of war and served his country. He is a veteran and believes not having an honorable discharge is limiting him from all endeavors and success in his government job dreams and continuing to help his country. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 3 August 2016, 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, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General, Under Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 16 March 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 2 February 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Failed to report to his appointed place of duty on numerous occasions (between August 2009 and January 2010); Failed to register his weapon on post and storing it in the unit’s arms room; and, Reprimanded for driving an automobile while intoxicated. (3) Recommended Characterization: General, Under Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: Waived, 1 March 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: N/A (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 3 March 2010 / General, Under Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 29 January 2008 / 3 years and 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 98 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-3 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 1 year, 11 months, and 26 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: SWA / Kuwait (3 September 2008 – 24 January 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: N/A h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 8 October 2008, for driving an automobile while intoxicated with an alcohol content of 0.158 Summarized Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 23 September 2009, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (25 August 2009). The punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 23 September 2009, reflects the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings. The evaluation revealed no mental health disorder so severe as to preclude the applicant from participating in the chapter process. He was cleared to participate in chapter process. CG Article 15, dated 23 November 2009, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on or about 8 October 2009 and 16 November 2009. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $366.00 pay (suspended), and 14 days of extra duty and restriction. Five DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action), dated between 11 September 2009 and 4 February 2010, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY)” to “Confined,” effective 11 September 2009 From “Confined” to “PDY,” effective 15 September 2009 From “PDY” to “Absent Without Leave (AWOL),” effective 22 January 2010 From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective 26 January 2010 From “PDY” to “AWOL,” effective 3 February 2010 Several DA Forms 4856 (Developmental Counseling), dated between 14 August 2009 and 8 January 2010, for failing to sign-in from leave on time, failing to shave, needing a haircut, being late for duty, living off post without commanders written consent, not being reachable, being late for extra duty, failing to report on several occasions, not being at his appointed place of duty on several occasion, having outstanding tickets and three active warrants for his arrest, disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer and noncommissioned officer, and lying to a commissioned officer, noncommissioned officer an illegal storage of a firearm i. Lost Time: 49 days (Confinement, 11 September 2009 – 15 September 2009) (AWOL, 22 January 2010 – 26 January 2010 and 3 February 2010 – 16 March 2010) j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: An online application, dated 24 March 2015; DD Form 214; and DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), dated 1 December 2008. 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 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, he did well while in the Army and had some miscommunication with his command and that he accepts full responsibility for his action but indicates he joined at a time of war and served his country. 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 applicant contends that not having an honorable discharge is limiting him from all endeavors and success in his government job dreams and continuing to help his country. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Furthermore, by regulation, a UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of a pattern of misconduct. It appears the applicant’s generally good record of service was the basis for his receiving a GD instead of the normal UOTHC discharge. The applicant expressed his desire for an upgrade of his discharge for the purposes of helping with his attempts to serve his country as a civilian contractor in Afghanistan. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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 3 August 2016, 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: 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 NA - Not applicable 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 OAD - Ordered to Active Duty SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training 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 MST – Military Sexual Trauma RE - Reentry UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20150009400 1