1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 21 March 2016 b. Date Received: 24 March 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, an upgrade will allow him to receive veterans’ benefits. The applicant knows that his temper and bad attitude were the major factors that led to the downfall of his military career. With the mistakes of the past behind him, he has remained positive and focused, which has allowed him to make better choices and decisions. The applicant has plans to attend school to become a mechanic, with a goal of starting his own business. He served his country to the best of his ability and would appreciate the opportunity to move forward in life, given another chance. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 27 February 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: Unsatisfactory Performance / AR 635-200 / Chapter 13 / JHJ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 29 September 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 18 June 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was counseled on numerous occasions for his dissatisfying duty performance and lack of professional and personal development, as well as his verbal indication of not seeking to make a solid career for himself in the military. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: undated (5) Administrative Separation Board: Waived, undated (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 2 September 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: NIF b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 101 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-4 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 6 years, 5 months, 9 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: NIF e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (4 May 2005 to 21 April 2006), Afghanistan (9 January 2008 to 6 January 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, JMUA, NDSM, ACM -2CS, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR-2, NATOMDL, CAB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: General Court-Martial Order Number 9, dated 1 May 2008, reflects the applicant was charged with: Charge I: Violation of Article 86, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (9 February 2007). Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Charge II: Violation of Article 91, for disrespectful language toward a noncommissioned officer (5 February 2007). Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Not Guilty. Charge II: Violation of Article 91 (four specifications), for disrespectful language toward a noncommissioned officer (5, 7, and 9 February 2007). Pleas: Not Guilty. Findings: Not Guilty. Charge III: Violation of Article 92, derelict in the performance of his duties (12 February 2007). Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Not Guilty. Charge IV: Violation of Article 120, committed the offense of carnal knowledge with a person who attained the age of 12, but was under the age of 16 (30 January 2007). Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Not Guilty. Charge V: Violation of Article 125, commit sodomy with a child who attained the age of 12, but was under the age of 16 (o/a 30 January 2007). Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Not Guilty. The sentence adjudged on 25 September 2007. The sentence consisted of reduction to E-2 and forfeiture of $750.00 pay per month four months. FG Article 15, dated 18 June 2010, for failing to report to his place of duty (4 January 2010 and 6 April 2010), failing to report to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed (16 November 2009, 22 February 2010, and 10 March 2010). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3 (suspended). Numerous DA Forms 4856 for failing to report to his appointed place of duty at time prescribed, obligation to pay alimony, failed to lock the supply room door, [LFC1] not having insurance on his privately owned vehicle, failing to report on multiple occasions, recommendation not to promote, out of uniform, loss or damage of military property, driving with suspended license and non-payment of debt. i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation, dated 23 June 2010, reflects the applicant was mentally responsible with a clear thinking process and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings. The applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command. The applicant was diagnosed with (Axis I) Adjustment D/O with disturbance of emotions and conduct. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214; State of North Carolina criminal record search, dated 17 March 2016; and a letter of support. 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 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this Chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. Army policy states that a general, under honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, an honorable discharge may be granted in meritorious cases. 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 of unsatisfactory performance which 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. The applicant contends that he was young and immature at the time of the discharge. The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The applicant has expressed his contentions OR desires to[LFC2] have medical benefits, better job opportunities and the benefits of the GI Bill. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Further, 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 third party statement provided with the application speak highly of the applicant’s performance. It recognize his good conduct after leaving the Army; however, the person providing the character reference statement was not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant’s chain of command. As such, the statement did not provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. 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. DOCUMENTS/TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted no additional documents or contentions. b. Witness(es)/Observer(s): None 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 27 February 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable 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 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 [LFC1] [LFC2] ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20160006526 5