1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 10 May 2016 b. Date Received: 1 August 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he was wrongfully accused of not being in compliance with military regulations while off duty. The applicant contends that the incident was not justice, it was bias. The applicant states that had the incident to his discharge not occurred, he would still be in the Army to this day. The applicant truly loved the military and states that he was a great Soldier. The applicant states that his discharge crushed his motivation on life, which has made him and everyone around him miserable. The applicant is in need of help from the Government to get his life back to normal and to change his life around for the best. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, and both the electronic military (AHLTA) and electronic VA (JLV) medical records were reviewed. Neither AHLTA nor JLV contain any information regarding the applicant. The Mental Status Evaluation dated 21 November 2002 indicates that the applicant did not have a psychiatric condition that required disposition through medical channels. The applicant was diagnosed with Occupational Problem. He was found to meet retention standards and cleared for administrative proceedings. Based on this evaluation, the applicant did not have a mitigating behavioral health condition for the misconduct leading to his discharge from the Army. In a record review hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 13 March 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, block 27 contains the erroneous reentry code of 4. In view of the error, the Board directed an administrative correction to block 27 to read RE-3, as required by Army Regulations. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 8 January 2003 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 26 November 2002 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: received a CG Article 15, for two incidents of disrespect to a superior NCO (27 April 2002); received a FG Article 15, for wrongful use of marijuana (16 July 2002); received a Summary Court-Martial for eight counts of failing to go to his appointed place of duty, and one count of breaking restriction (17 September 2002); and, following his Summary Court-Martial, he had disrespected both commissioned officers and NCOs and was apprehended by Military Police for purchasing alcoholic beverages for another Soldier who was under the age of 21, in violation of Army regulations and New York State law (2 November 2002). (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 3 December 2002 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Waived, 3 December 2002 (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 19 December 2002 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 7 June 1999 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 97 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 88M10, Motor Transport Operations / 3 years, 6 months, 2 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 27 April 2002, for disrespectful language toward an NCO (8 April 2002) and failure to obey a lawful order (8 April 2002). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $323 pay (suspended), extra duty and restriction for 14 days, and an oral reprimand. DD Form 2624, dated 8 July 2002, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 84 during an Inspection Unit (IU) urinalysis testing conducted on 24 June 2002. FG Article 15, dated 16 July 2002, for wrongfully using marijuana (between 24 May and 24 June 2002). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $552 pay per month for two months, extra duty for 45 days, and restriction for 60 days. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms for failure to obey an order; insubordinate conduct; positive urinalysis test; failing to report to his appointed place of duty at time prescribed; failure to be in the prescribed uniform; failure to report on multiple occasions; lack of discipline; purchasing alcohol for person under the age 21; disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer; intent to separate from service; violation of restriction; failure to report to extra duty. Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial, dated 17 September 2002, reflects the charges, pleas and findings as follows: Charge I, eight specifications of violating the UCMJ, Article 86, for failing to report to his appointed place of duty at time prescribed on: 26 August 2002; guilty, consistent with plea; 25 August 2002; guilty, not consistent with plea; 23 August 2002; guilty, not consistent with plea; 8 August 2002; guilty, consistent with plea; 7 August 2002; guilty, not consistent with plea; 6 August 2002, guilty, of substituted words; 5 August 2002, guilty; of substituted words; and, 5 August 2002, guilty, consistent with plea. Charge II, one specification of violating the UCMJ, Article 92, for violating a lawful general regulation by not wearing his Kevlar helmet while driving a tactical vehicle on 13 August 2002. Not guilty, consistent with plea. Charge III, one specification of violating the UCMJ, Article 92, for breaking restriction on 23 August 2002. Guilty, consistent with plea. The sentenced adjudged: Forfeiture of $737 pay per month for one month and confinement for 30 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 29 days (Military Confinement, 17 September 2002 to 16 October 2002) / released to unit j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 21 November 2002, reflects the applicant was cleared for administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with (Axis I) Occupational Problem. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; DD Form 214; two self-authored statements; and two character statements. 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. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. 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 be retained on active duty. The applicant has expressed his desire for VA benefits. 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 service record indicates that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 27, reentry code as 4. The discharge packet confirms the separation authority approved the discharge by reason of pattern of misconduct. Soldiers processed for pattern of misconduct will be assigned an SPD Code of JKA and an RE Code of 3. The applicant contends that he was a great Soldier. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended for his accomplishments. The rationale the applicant provided as the basis for what he believes was an unjust and bias discharge is not supportable by the evidence contained in the record and can only be viewed as speculative in nature. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. 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 record review hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 13 March 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, block 27 contains the erroneous reentry code of 4. In view of the error, the Board directed an administrative correction to block 27 to read RE-3, as required by Army Regulations. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change SPD/RE Code to: No Change to SPD / Change RE code to 3 e. 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 AR20160013770 1