1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 19 January 2016 b. Date Received: 27 January 2016 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 carried out his duties as a Soldier by being where he needed to be and being counted on. The actions that led to his discharge do not display the type of character that he is. He is currently going through a divorce and has to care for his two-year-old daughter. The applicant works full time, he is in the last semester of his Education and Psychology Associate Degree Programs, and plans to continue his education towards a doctorate degree to become a teacher. Having an honorable discharge would help his goals immensely. The applicant was conditionally released from the Army National Guard after serving three years of service to join the Active Army. Being in the Army is the only thing he ever really wanted, and it causes a lot of grief knowing that it came to a premature end. He has not given in to adversity by making a better life for him and his daughter. While knowing that certain actions of his have fallen below expectations in the past, he believes his overall service as a Soldier was honorable as it was truly an honor to serve in the US Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 12 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 20 November 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 29 October 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: At or near Vicenza, Italy, he unlawfully pin Ms. C to the floor and struck her in the face, back of the head, and the back multiple times with an open and closed fist on 11 October 2014, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ. At or near Vicenza, Italy, he unlawfully struck Ms. C in the lip with a picture frame on 29 June 2014, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ. At or near Vicenza, Italy, he unlawfully struck Ms. C in the face with the back of his hand on 10 May 2014, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ. (3) Recommended Characterization: Honorable (4) Legal Consultation Date: 3 November 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 20 November 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 5 August 2013 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 114 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B1P, Infantryman / 4 years, 6 months, 27 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 23 April 2010 to 21 September 2011 / NA IADT, 22 September 2011 to 18 November 2011 / HD ARNG, 19 November 1011 to 4 August 2013 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Italy / None f. Awards and Decorations: AGCM; NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: There is no negative counseling statement or any action under the UCMJ. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149, with self-authored statement; DD Form 214; separation notification memorandum; and five character reference and supporting statements. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, in effect, he is employed full time and in his last semester of two Associate degrees, and he plans on continuing his education towards a doctorate degree. His character reference statement states that he was recently inducted into the Psi Beta Psychology Honor Society. 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 14-12c 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. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, Misconduct (Serious Offense). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 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, and the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record further 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. By the incidents of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and 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, such that he should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant contends an upgrade would help his goals immensely by the benefits of the GI Bill. However, eligibility for veterans' 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. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incidents of misconduct, and his post-service accomplishments, the Board can find that his complete period of service and his accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re- characterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. 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 12 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 AR20160002977 1