1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 4 February 2016 b. Date Received: 16 February 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, his upgrade should be granted because he was a model Soldier and he loved being in the Army. While he was in his Advanced Individual Training, his best friend died, his mother was diagnosed with cervical cancer, and his son was diagnosed with sickle cell. He was denied leave and it became hard for him as he had to send his entire military check to his mother to help take care of his kids. He had no one to turn to for help with counseling or mentoring during this difficult time in service. He had his mother, his kids and his family on his mind and was scared because of things that had happened to him as a child. One day he was told he was diagnosed with anxiety attacks and told he was being discharged, but his discharge would automatically upgrade in six months. He has now given his life to God to have faith, forgiveness and understanding. An upgrade would assist with him accessing his MGIB benefits to attend a criminal justice program. He is trying to do better in life and is a head coach to a football team for kids that need help in life. 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 the military electronic medical records revealed a history treatment for Anxiety, Depression, Borderline Personality Disorder, and Conversion Disorder. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 21 April 2017, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable. The Board found the post-service accomplishments as annotated in the case report and directive, the circumstances surrounding his discharge and AWOL (i.e. in-service OBH and severe family matters) mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changes to the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 9 March 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 15 February 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: he received a CG Article 15 on 11 January 2007, for absenting himself from his unit (2 January 2007 until 5 January 2007); and, he received another CG Article 15 on 20 January 2007, for leaving the installation without an authorized pass on three occasions. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 22 February 2007 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 5 March 2007 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 23 August 2006 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / HS Graduate / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-1 / 9B10, Trainee Unassigned / 6 months, 15 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Commander's Report, dated 15 February 2007, reflects the applicant received a CG Article 15, on 11 January 2007, for violations of Article 86, UCMJ. The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $303 pay (suspended for 90 days); and extra duty and restriction for 14 days. CG Article 15, dated 20 January 2007, for wrongfully leave the installation without authorized pass (12, 13, and 14 January 2007). The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $303 pay and 14 days of extra duty and restriction. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 7 February 2007, for intent to separate from service for pattern of misconduct. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 7 February 2007, reflects the applicant was cleared for administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could participate in the proceedings. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 2 days (AWOL, 3 to 4 January 2007) / returned to military control. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with all allied documents listed in block 8 of the application. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Coaches football for children in need of mentoring and is pursuing his degree. 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. Secretary of Defense Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments (Subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, dated September 3, 2014), provided guidance to help ensure consistency across the military services in consideration of PTSD relevant to Service Members' discharges. "Liberal consideration will be given in petitions for changes in characterization of service to service treatment record entries which document one of more symptoms which meet the diagnostic criteria of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or related conditions. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations which document PTSD or PTSD-related conditions connected to military services. In cases where Service Records or any document from the period of service substantiated the existence of one or more symptoms of what is now recognized as PTSD or PTSD-related condition during the time of service, liberal consideration will be given to finding that PTSD existed at the time of service. Liberal consideration will also be given in cases where civilian providers confer diagnoses of PTSD or PTSD-related conditions, when case records contain narratives that support symptomatology at the time of service, or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that PTSD or a PTSD-related disorder existed at the time of discharge which might have mitigated the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. This guidance in not applicable to cases involving pre- existing conditions which are determined not to have been incurred or aggravated while in military service." 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, such that he should be retained on active duty. The applicant's issue about an 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. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization 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 third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. They all recognize his good conduct 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 applicant contends he was diagnosed with anxiety attacks while in the Army. However, the service record contains no evidence of anxiety diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. The applicant contends that he was having family issues that affected his behavior and ultimately caused him to be discharged. However, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. 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 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 21 April 2017, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable. The Board found the post-service accomplishments as annotated in the case report and directive, the circumstances surrounding his discharge and AWOL (i.e. in-service OBH and severe family matters) mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changes to the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a e. Change SPD/RE Code to: Change SPD to JKN / No change to RE code f. Restore 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 AR20160004070 4