1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 17 August 2016 b. Date Received: 9 September 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he believes that there was no justification for his discharge because the cutting instrument in question was not truly a "cutting instrument." His chain of command knew he purchased the sword and no one mentioned to him that it was supposed to be placed in the arms room, fact is no one actually considered this mock sword a weapon. He knows that he did not deserve to be separated and given a general discharge for that incident. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 15 November 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 / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 26 November 2003 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 21 November 2003 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; he received a FG Article 15 for disrespect to an NCO (29 July 2002); he was counseled for substandard performance (23 December 2002); he was counseled for failure to obey a direct order (3 March 2003); he was counseled for failing to keep his room to standard (12 September 2003); he was counseled for failing to be at his appointed place (15 October 2003); and he was counseled for being arrested on 10 October 2003 for an outstanding warrant and possession of a weapon (16 October 2003). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 21 November 2003, the applicant consulted with legal counsel; although his election of rights indicate he waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation board even though he was not entitled to a board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 24 November 2003 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 October 2001 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 years / HS Graduate / 116 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 35J10, Telecommunications Terminal Device Repairer / 2 years, 1 month, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Kuwait f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 29 July 2002, for being disrespectful in language toward SSG A.S., a noncommissioned officer NCO, who was then in the execution of his office, (18 May 2002); (the continuation page is not contained in the available record); reduction to PVT / E-1, forfeiture of $552 pay, extra duty and restriction for 45 days and oral reprimand. Military Police Reports, dated 10 October 2003 and 15 October 2002, relates the applicant was under investigation for weapons violations, unlawful possession of a knife, a razor cutting instrument, failing to obey lawful orders or regulations, military detained warrants on post; and terroristic threats off post respectively. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 30 October 2003, revealed that there was no evidence of any mental disease or defect, which would warrant a disposition through medical / psychiatric channels. He reported no suicidal or homicidal thoughts at that time. He was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command. The applicant received numerous negative counseling statements 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 (two pages); and exhibit 1. 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 allows for separation for misconduct with paragraph 14-1 allowing for separating personnel because of minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, or absence without leave. Paragraph 14-2 states action will be taken to separate a Soldier for misconduct when it is clearly established that despite attempts to rehabilitate or develop him/her as a Soldier further effort is not likely to succeed; rehabilitation is impracticable or the Soldier is not amenable to rehabilitation. 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 requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and document 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. By the documented pattern of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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 seeks relief contending, he believes that there was no justification for his discharge because the cutting instrument in question was not truly a "cutting instrument." The record of evidence shows that the applicant was discharged for a pattern of misconduct. The cutting instrument he refers to was not the sole reason for his discharge. The applicant admitted in his exhibit 1 statement, he had no idea the sword was considered a dangerous weapon. The applicant alleges that his chain of command was aware of the purchase and it was inspected by the military police. However, the record of evidence does not substantiate his claim. The applicant further contends, his chain of command knew he purchased the sword and no one mentioned to him that it was supposed to be placed in the arms room and that no one actually considered this mock sword a weapon. 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 also contends, he knows that he did not deserve to be separated and given a general discharge for that incident. The service record indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, 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. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier's separation specifically allows such characterization. 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 15 November 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 AR20160016019 1