1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 18 July 2016 b. Date Received: 22 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, since being discharged from the Army, he has moved on to better himself, and his life after failing as a Soldier. He became a policeman, and has been serving in that capacity as a patrolman. He has continued to serve the country, state, and city by policing. He is a certified policeman in the state of Illinois, lead homicide investigator, juvenile officer, pistol instructor, rifle instructor, shotgun instructor, simunitions instructor, and has had several other certifications in his ten year career as a policeman. In 2010, he was run over by a drunk driver and he was told that he would never walk again. He suffered several broken bones and other severe injuries to include being in a coma for two weeks. After his coma, he was able to persevere by recalling the training he received from his Army noncommissioned officers. He eventually recovered and through the encouragement of his fellow officers he eventually return to patrolling and within five months he was able to run miles. The applicant further states in 2012, he was shot in the face, in the line of duty, by a man wanted by the US Marshal's service. He was told again that he may not make it, but he had to keep fighting the good fight and in six months he had recovered and returned to work. In 2015, his patrol vehicle was struck by a drunk driver and again he was able to recover from his injuries and continue to protect and serve his community. He acknowledges that he made many mistakes as a young Soldier, and as he grew older and matured, he saw the error of his ways. He states, he was a know it all, but he did not know much when joining the Army at 17 years old. His NCO told him that he was a good Soldier with a hard head. He believes if he would have been able to get the kid out of his system, he would have been a fine Soldier. He has continued to strive to become a better follower and leader, but he still has plenty to learn. He has worked on himself tirelessly to become a better person and citizen. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 22 September 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 13 January 2006 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 December 2005 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He had established a pattern of misconduct within the unit, in that, he failed to respect the authority figures appointed over him and Army Regulations, and his actions would not be tolerated. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 19 December 2005 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 27 December 2005 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 30 January 2003 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 17 / GED / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 25Q10, Multichannel Transmission Systems Operator-Maintainer / 2 years, 11 months, 14 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 3 February 2005, for disrespect in deportment towards a noncommissioned officer (15 December 2004). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2; forfeiture of $323 pay; and, extra duty and restriction for 14 days. FG Article 15, dated 8 December 2005, for making a false official statement (26 June 2005). The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $618 pay per month for two months; and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. FG Article 15, dated 6 October 2005, for failing to obey a lawful general regulation (12 May and 16 August 2005). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $618 pay per month for two months; and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 14 December 2005, 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 could participate in the proceedings. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None 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: Serves as a police officer. 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. 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 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 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 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 22 September 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 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 AR20160013425 1