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 to change the narrative reason for his discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, the bases for his request is to enable him to reenlist. He also did not receive the required attention, instead he was immediately separated. Upon his discharge, he surrounded himself with a strong support system that helped him towards his recovery. He returned to school, graduated with honors, and had no issues staying employed. He repaired his credit and made amends by becoming responsible and a contributing member of society. Although his separation was due to his character, the complete issue of his misconduct was rooted in a single issue. His situation was not taken seriously by his command to effectively foster his full recovery, although ASAP has a record of success. He demonstrated being depended on alcohol, yet he saw others in his unit with similar issues but their behaviors were either excused or explained in a way which led him to believe he was treated differently. He does not excuse all his responsibilities as he has moved forward. He possesses the qualities and values of a Soldier-he has demonstrated that he is capable of overcoming. He is willing to prove that he can serve honorably. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 6 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, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 1 March 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 30 January 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 29 December 2011, he received a FG Article 15 for two instances of disrespecting an NCO and disorderly conduct. He consumed alcohol despite being ordered not to and being enrolled in the Army Substance Abuse Program. He has shown a complete disregard for respect toward NCOs. His conduct is prejudicial to the good order and discipline, and of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 31 January 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 10 February 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 11 April 2011 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / HS Graduate / 118 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 14T10, Patriot Launching Station Enhanced Operator-Maintainer / 10 months, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Negative counseling statements for being recommended for an involuntary separation; failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time; being intoxicated; being disrespectful and arguing with NCOs on numerous occasions; being restricted from consuming alcohol; being recommended for ASAP and anger management; being disobedient; reviewing the basic responsibility of being a Soldier; failing to score 90 percent on the Table IV C test; being found passed out; being restrained by medical personnel; refusing to provide a urine sample; using sexist and racist remarks; being recommended for a FG Article; trying to sneak a guest into barracks room through an emergency exit and breaking a security seal; failing to follow CQ instructions and battalion SOP; drinking while enrolled in ASAP; and implementing safety controls for his safety and welfare. Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment, dated 18 October 2011, indicates a self-referral (however, counseling records show he was being recommended for ASAP enrollment). Serious Incident Report, dated 11 December 2011, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for breaking a security seal of a barracks emergency door. FG Article 15, dated 29 December 2011, for being disrespectful towards an NCO on two separate occasions, and displaying a disorderly conduct on 26 November 2011. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $733, and 45 days of extra duty. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 6 January 2012, indicates the applicant's diagnosis was alcohol dependency, and was cleared for chapter process. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 3 January 2017; Phi Theta Kappa certificate; Associate of Arts Diploma; PTK card; and community college transcript. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, in effect, a strong support system helped him towards his recovery. He returned to school, graduated with honors, and had no issues staying employed. He repaired his credit and made amends by becoming a responsible contributing member of society. 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 to change the narrative reason for his discharge. 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 marred the quality of his service that ultimately caused his discharge from the Army. 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 requests to change the reason for his separation; however, the narrative reason for his separation is governed by specific directives. The narrative reason specified by AR 635- 5-1 for a discharge under Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b is "Pattern of Misconduct," and the separation code is JKA. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. However, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3. There are no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or to the RE code. An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist. If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. In consideration of the applicant's post-service accomplishments, the Board can find that his accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant a change to the narrative reason for his discharge. Although the applicant did not request for an upgrade, the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re-characterization 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 applicant contends his chain of command did not provide him the proper required attention and they did not take his situation seriously to foster an effective full recovery. However, the evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non- judicial punishment, and had also enrolled him in the Army Substance Abuse Program. The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts. The applicant contends that other Soldiers with similar issues were either excused or their behaviors explained in a way which led him to believe he was treated differently. However, the method in which another Soldier's case was handled is not relevant to the applicant's case. Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case. He also had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support his request to change the narrative reason for his discharge. 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 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 6 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 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 Code to: No Change f. Change 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 AR20170001451 2