1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 14 April 2016 b. Date Received: 18 April 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 discharge should be upgraded so he can continue to grow as a productive civilian. The applicant contends that he was discharged simply for missing formation and had he been afforded the opportunity to move to a new battalion, he believes that he would not have been discharged. He further contends that he was deprived and discriminated against because of his mistake. 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 condition for the offenses. The Active Duty electronic medical record was reviewed and revealed the applicant was evaluated by ASAP but did not meet criteria for a Substance Use Disorder and had no history of mental health diagnoses. The Report of Medical Examination dated 16 August 2011 indicated symptoms of Depression, Anger, and Sleep issues; however, these behavioral health conditions were not a mitigating factor for misconduct that led to the separation action of the applicant from the Army. Mental status exams dated 12 September 2011 indicated No Diagnosis and the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for administrative action. He screened negative for PTSD and TBI. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 31 May 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: 22 May 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 5 April 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: missed accountability formation (1 November and 5 December 2011); failed to report to his place of duty (23 January 2012); and, failed to maintain accountability of his toolbox until the Commander mentioned to the Platoon Sergeant that his section was missing something (7 February 2012). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 9 April 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 3 May 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 16 June 2010 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 91D10, Power Generation Equipment Repairer / 1 year, 11 months, 7 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 19 December 2010, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation for underage drinking and driving a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol and negligent driving second degree. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 27 January 2011, for driving under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol content of .039 on 18 December 2010. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 12 September 2011, reflects the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and appreciate the difference between right wrong. Memorandum For Record, dated 14 March 2012, reflects the applicant was a rehabilitative transfer on 3 August 2011. 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 Medical History, dated 13 August 2011, reflects the medical examiner annotated the applicant had a history of depression and anger issues. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 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. 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 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 contends his discharge was simply for missing formation; however, the service record indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses of missing formation, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant's numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant further contends that had he been afforded the opportunity to move to a new battalion, he would not have been discharged. He believes that he was deprived and discriminated against because of his mistake. Evidence of records shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and a letter of reprimand. Furthermore the applicant was transferred from 571st MP Co to 66th MP Co as a rehabilitative transfer and was informed that he would have a fresh start and any actions from his previous company would not be held against him. Based on a series of incidents, including failure to report on three different occasions and lying to a noncommissioned officer, separation action was initiated against the applicant. Therefore, it appears the rationale the applicant provided as the basis for what he believes was an unfair discharge is not supportable by the evidence contained in the record and can only be viewed as speculative in nature. 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 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 31 May 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 Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change f. 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 AR20160008364 4