1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 22 September 2016 b. Date Received: 26 September 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 pertinent part and in effect, most of his misconduct took place within in a six- month period. He was a dedicated Soldier, who gave 110 percent. His first encounter occurred until at least a year at his duty station, where he received three of the four UCMJ actions. There were ongoing investigations of discrimination and sexual assault within his unit. That included the period with his first unit that cycled three changes to his senior leadership. He understands his behavior is unacceptable but he feels the cause of his actions are justified. Of the three UCMJ actions, two were recommended and executed by the same person. Although he was not the most elite Soldier, he was also not the most troublesome either. He maintained physical training, marksman, and his occupation specialty. He performed to the best of his ability. He tried to complete his enlistment but he was not able to due to the deaths and financial troubles unfolding around him. An upgrade would help with furthering his education, become more productive in society, and enable him to provide for his family. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time including the applicant's case file, AHLTA and JL. AHLTA diagnoses include Adjustment Disorder, Occupational Problem. Applicant had multiple BH contacts. He initially presented as a self-referral in Jan 2015, requesting help with his anger. He reported then that he and his siblings had been adopted by his great aunt and uncle when he was 7yo because his mother had Schizophrenia. He reported a history of physical abuse by the mother prior to the adoption. Adoptive parents were also abusive. He reported a long history of having difficulty with authority figures and anger. He was referred to and attended the Anger Management Group. VA records indicate only DOD content. Based on the available information, the applicant does not have a mitigating behavioral health disorder for the misconduct leading to his discharge from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 1 December 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 8 December 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 16 November 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 18 November 2014, he was disrespectful in deportment towards an NCO. On 16 April 2015, he was disrespectful in language and deportment towards an NCO. On 21 September 2015, he left his appointed place of duty without authority. On 4 September 2015, he was disrespectful in language towards an NCO. On 21 September 2015, he was disrespectful in deportment towards an NCO. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: Waived, 16 November 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 23 November 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 22 April 2013 (delayed entry program) / 4 years and 24 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / 14 years / 114 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92G10, Food Service Specialist / 2 years, 6 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM; NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 18 December 2014, for being disrespectful in deportment towards an NCO on 18 November 2014. The punishment consisted of 30 days of extra duty, 15 days of which was suspended. FG Article 15, dated 8 May 2015, for being disrespectful in language and deportment towards an NCO on 16 April 2015. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $773 pay per month for two months (suspended), 45 days of extra duty, and 45 days of restriction (suspended). Two DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Actions) reflect changes to the applicant's duty statuses from PDY to Civilian Confinement (CCA), effective 4 October 2015, and CCA to PDY, effective 6 October 2015. FG Article 15, dated 27 October 2015, for leaving his appointed place of duty without authority on 21 September 2015, being disrespectful in language towards an NCO on 4 September 2015, and being disrespectful in deportment towards an NCO on 21 September 2015. The punishment consisted of 30 days of extra duty and restriction. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 3 days (Civilian Confinement from 4 October 2015 to 6 October 2015) / Released from confinement j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 22 September 2016, with self-authored statement. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided 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. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, pattern of misconduct. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKA" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant's available record of service, and 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. By the incidents of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of his service. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or sufficient evidence that the applicant's service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant's contentions that his discharge was unfair was carefully considered. However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he may have been unjustly discharged. 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 applicant has expressed his desire to have better job opportunities, and the benefits of the GI Bill so that he may be productive in society and provide for his family. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Further, eligibility for veterans' 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 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 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 1 December 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 AR20160018473 4