1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 4 January 2016 b. Date Received: 8 January 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that he would like an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of receiving VA benefits and the fact that it has been more than six months since his discharge. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant had no mitigating medical or behavioral health conditions for the offenses. A review of medical records revealed the applicant received behavioral health treatment starting in May 2011 (in theater) following a suicide attempt (overdose) which he attributed to marital and financial stressors. A Mental Status Exam dated 7 May 2011 diagnosed the applicant with Marital Problem NOS and recommended down time and quarters until follow-up appointment. Although the applicant received treatment for an Adjustment Disorder, Partner Relational Problem, and an Acute Reaction to Stress, these behavioral health conditions do not mitigate his actions. The applicant had patterns of misconduct prior to deployment and prior to onset of behavioral health symptoms and the nature of his symptoms are not reasonably related to the misconduct leading to separation from the Army. Mental Status Exam as part of separation physical was not in file. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 28 April 2017, 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: 26 October 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 13 August 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: failed to wear his advanced combat helmet (12 May 2011), which was in violation of CJTF-101 general Order 1b, dated 18 June 2010; and, showed a pattern of misconduct, which included disrespecting his first line supervisor Sergeant R.A.M., and continually failing to be at his appointed place of duty. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 13 August 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 13 August 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 7 October 2008 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / HS Graduate / 87 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist / 3 years, 20 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (7 January 2011 to 20 August 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 25 May 2010, treated with contempt Sergeant R.M and Sergeant N.R.L, superior noncommissioned officers (24 February 2010), failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (18 December 2009 and 2 February 2010), disobeyed a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer (23 February 2010), was derelict in the performance of his duties (23 February 2010), with intent to deceive, make false official statements to Sergeants R.M., and other NCOs for the purpose of avoiding a work related task on divers occasions, (between 5 January 2010 and 6 April 2010), , feign a hip injury on 17 February 2010. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1 (suspended), forfeiture of $337.00 (suspended), and 14 days extra duty and restriction. FG Article 15, dated 24 July 2011, for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 26 May 2011 and 22 June 2011, and being disrespectful in deportment toward Sergeant R.E.M, a noncommissioned officer on 21 June 2011. Punishment received is unknown. The applicant received numerous negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and performance counseling i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, shows the applicant was diagnosed with (Axis I) marital problems. It was noted that the applicant should have been given down time and allowed to remain in quarters until his appointment on Monday, 9 May 2011. He was given therapy assignments and tasks to do to encourage recovery prior to his appointment. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 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 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 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 expressed his desire for an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of receiving VA benefits. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The applicant seeks relief contending his discharge should be upgraded based on the fact that it has been more than six months since his discharge. 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. 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 28 April 2017, 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 SPD / RE Code to: No Change e. Restore (Restoration of) Grade 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 AR20160001100 2