1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 22 July 2016 b. Date Received: 25 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, he was subjected to religious discrimination by his platoon sergeant, which contributed significantly to his general discharge. He states, after he tried to confide in his platoon sergeant regarding his religious beliefs, specifically in the context of the applicant's atheist beliefs on a just war and human rights violations relating to the Iraq war. Afterwards, his platoon sergeant began disregarding the applicant's beliefs and started preaching to the applicant; and, singled out the applicant for punishment based on his platoon sergeant's strict southern Baptist views. He states, this led the applicant into a severe depression that resulted in the unmitigated underage use of alcohol. As a consequence of his substance abuse the applicant's platoon sergeant, instead of helping the applicant, arbitrarily and capriciously violated the spirit of the law and sought out the maximum punishment for the applicant's behavior. The applicant states, at this point, he was ready to get out of the Army by any means necessary. His substance abuse led to him missing formations, which resulted in punishment under the UCMJ, for five incidents of AWOL. He failed physical fitness tests due to his underage abuse of alcohol and other self-neglect. He states, his depressive state and behavior were exploited to justify his discharge and determine his characterization of service. The applicant states, since his discharge, his characterization of service continues to haunt him and affect his job opportunities. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, The applicant had a normal Separation Mental Status Exam (MSE) on 27 February 2004 He was found to meet medical retention requirements (AR 40-501). He was given a diagnosis of Occupational Problem, and the question of whether he had a personality disorder was deferred. He was cleared for discharge. The applicant's AHLTA records had no encounters. JLV showed no service-connected disability percentages from the VA or VA visits. There is insufficient available medical evidence to support the applicant's claims about depression. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 27 September 2017, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. a General Discharge for failure to meet standards), and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. (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: 6 April 2004 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 March 2004 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He failed four consecutive record APFTs. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 19 March 2004 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 22 March 2004 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 26 June 2002 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / HS Graduate / 116 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 31F10, MSE Network Switching Systems Operator / 1 year, 9 months, 11 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, KDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 17 December 2003, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on divers occasions (between 8 September and 1 December 2003). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $575.00 pay per month for two months; and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct and for failing the APFT. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Mental Status Evaluation, dated 27 February 2004, reflects the applicant was cleared for administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible with clear thinking process. The applicant was diagnosed with: Occupational Problem (Axis I). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with all allied documents listed in block 8 of the application. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Earned his Bachelor's Degree. 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 he was harrased and discriminated by members of his chain of command; 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. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge. Further, 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 applicant contends that depression and alcohol abuse 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. 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 will allow him to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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 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 27 September 2017, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. a General Discharge for failure to meet standards), and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable 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 AR20160013272 1