1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 3 January 2017 b. Date Received: 9 January 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, in almost two years of service, he had two incidents and the only action that was taken against him, was a company grade Article 15. He states, after his punishment, he was given a under other than honorable conditions discharge. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 25 April 2018, 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 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 27 September 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 31 July 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Violation of Article 86, UCMJ, on or about 13 May 2007; Violation of Article 134, UCMJ, on or about 13 May 2007; Violation of Article 86, UCMJ, on or about 25 June 2007; Violation of Article 134, UCMJ, on or about 25 June 2007; Violation of Article 86, UCMJ, on or about 20 May 2007; Violations of Article 86, UCMJ, on or about 16 and 17 February 2007; Two Violations of Article 134, UCMJ, on or about 19 February 2007; Violation of Article 86, UCMJ, on or about 9 December 2006; Violation of Article 90, UCMJ, on or about 9 December 2006; Violation of Article 86, UCMJ, on or about 6 April 2006; Violation of Article 86, UCMJ, on or about 11 May , 28 July, 3 October, 19 October, 21 October 2006; and, Two Violations of Article 92, UCMJ, on or about 21 October 2006. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 12 June 2007 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 12 June 2007, the applicant waived consideration of his case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 14 September 2007 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 July 2005 / 3 years, 28 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 17 / GED / 97 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 63A10, Abrams Tank System Maintainer / 2 years, 2 months, 1 day d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 22 November 2006, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on seven occasions (6 April, 11 May, 28 July 3, 19 and 21 October 2006(x2)); and, failure to obey a lawful order (x2) (21 October 2006). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2; forfeiture of $333 (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 14 days. FG Article 15, dated 24 January 2007, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (9 December 2006); and failing to obey a lawful order (9 December 2006). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $636 pay per month for two months (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. FG Article 15, dated 21 March 2007, for being AWOL (between 20 and 22 February 2007); failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (x2) (16 and 17 February 2007); for wrongfully possessing another's military identification card (19 February 2007); and, for breaking restriction (19 February 2007). The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $650 pay per month for two months; and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 8 May 2007, 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. Five Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Failure to Report," effective 13 May 2007; From "Failure to Report" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 14 May 2007; From "AWOL," to "Present for Duty (PDY)," effective 10 June 2007. From "Present" to "AWOL," effective 25 June 2007; and, From "AWOL," to "Present for Duty (PDY)," effective 5 July 2007. Report of result of Trial, reflects the applicant was tried in a Summary Court-Martial on 11 July 2007. The applicant was charged with five specifications. The summary of offenses, pleas and findings: Violation of Article 86, Failure to report: On 13 May 2007 to 10 June 2007, guilty, consistent with the plea; and, On 25 June 2007 to 6 July 2007; guilty, consistent with the plea. Violation of Article 134, break restriction: On 13 May 2007: guilty, consistent with the plea; and, On 25 June 2007; guilty, consistent with the plea. Sentence: Reduction to E-1; Forfeiture $650 pay; and, confinement for 30 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 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 requests an upgrade of his under other than 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 claims the offenses that caused his discharge were minor in nature. However, 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. 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 25 April 2018, 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 a New Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code 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 AR20170000981 1