1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 28 June 2016 b. Date Received: 1 July 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, the upgrade would benefit his chances of obtaining grants and possibly using money he paid in to the government to continue his education. Some employers look down on anything other than an honorable discharge. He had injured his knees and he had to leave, but it was not his choice. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 25 September 2017, and by a 3-2 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: 11 October 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 14 September 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He failed to maintain physical progression; lacked motivation, respect and discipline to train; refused to keep his haircut; and, was a disruptive influence to unit morale. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 14 September 2012, the applicant waived his rights to consult with a JAG officer. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 1 October 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 28 February 2012 / 3 years, 16 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 120 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-1 / None / 7 months, 14 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: The applicant's service record reflects he was awarded the NDSM, however, this medal is not reflected on his DD Form 214. g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Several Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. Chronological Record Of Medical Care, dated 4 September 2012, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and had no abnormal thought content. Memorandum, undated, reflects the applicant had been previously treated for pain in both knees. The applicant's injury had healed, but despite rest and various treatment approaches he reported no resolution in pain and had been unable to progress back to full impact activities. Separation from service was recommended as the applicant did not meet the criteria for a medical board. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and a copy of his separation packet. 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. 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 have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant contends that medical issues contributed to his discharge from the Army. However, the service record does not support the applicant's contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition. The applicant was discharged because of his failure to maintain physical progression; lacked motivation, respect and discipline to train; refused to keep his haircut; and, was a disruptive influence to unit morale. Further, the record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service with either medical limitation or medication. 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 applicant further contends that some employers look down on anything other than an honorable discharge. The Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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 25 September 2017, and by a 3-2 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 new Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. SPD/RE Code Change to: No Change f. Restoration to Grade: 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 AR20160012077 1