1. APPLICANT’S NAME: a. Application Date: 19 December 2014 b. Date Received: 30 January 2015 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, REASON, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant states, in effect, that he was told by his superior officers after a year his discharge would be upgraded to honorable. He contends he entered at a time of war and realized the military was not for him at his young age. He was given an honorable discharge but as a result of not passing the physical training test he was given a Chapter 14. His discharge makes reference to marijuana which had nothing to do with his discharge. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 11 May 2016, 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: 17 March 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 23 February 2009 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: demonstrating an inability to adjust to the military and patterns of misconduct by receiving numerous negative counseling statements regarding his un-professionalism while at training; being disrespectful to noncommissioned officers; and failing to follow orders; assault; and failing to be at his appointed place of duty. (3) Recommended Characterization: General, Under Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 23 February 2009, the applicant waived his right to legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 9 March 2009 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 3 years and 25 weeks b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 19 years / HS Graduate / 102 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-2 / None / 6 Months and 29 Days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: None g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: Article 15, imposed on 6 February 2009, for assaulting PVT A., by putting his hands on him on 17 December 2008. The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1 (suspended), forfeiture of $366.00 (suspended) and extra duty and restriction for 14 days (suspended) (CG). Record of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 13 February 2009, for vacation of suspension of punishment of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $366.00, and extra duty and restriction for 14 days imposed on 6 February 2009, for violation Article 91 on 11 February 2009, by being disrespectful to SFC S., an senior noncommissioned officer who was in the execution of his office, by raising his voice and taking his rank off and placing it on the CQ desk and Article 86 on 13 February 2009, by attempting to go AWOL by leaving the company area without authorization. Record of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 17 February 2009, which set aside the punishment of 14 days restriction and extra duty imposed on 13 February 2009, based on the applicant being considered for Chapter 13 separation. Several negative counseling statements dated between 11 February 2009 and 20 February 2009, disrespect toward a non-commissioned officer, provoking speech and gestures, lack of discipline and military bearing, failure to follow his basic obligations and duties as a Soldier, recommendation for his previous punishment (Article 15) to be unsuspended, insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, failure to obey order or regulation, Chapter 13 separation for unsatisfactory performance, changing of his discharge from Chapter 13 to Chapter 14 as a result of a pattern of misconduct. i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 25 February 2009, shows the applicant was …..... 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, dated 19 December 2014, and a copy of his DD Form 214, for the period of service under review. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None. 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 ISSUE(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant’s record of service, the documents and the issues submitted with the 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. 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. The applicant seeks relief contending that, he was told by his superior officers after a year his discharge would be upgraded to honorable. However, the US Army does not have, nor has it ever had a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 293 requesting a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines the characterization of service or the reasons for discharge, or both, were improper or inequitable. The applicant contends he entered at a time of war and realized the military was not for him at his young age. The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. He also contends he was given an honorable discharge but as a result of not passing the physical training test he was given a Chapter 14 and his discharge makes reference to marijuana which had nothing to do with his discharge. However, evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged for demonstrating an inability to adjust to the military and patterns of misconduct by receiving numerous negative counseling statements regarding his un- professionalism while at training, being disrespectful to noncommissioned officers, failing to follow orders, assault, and failing to be at his appointed place of duty which resulted in him receiving a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions discharge. The separation packet makes no reference to any marijuana charges or recommendation of an honorable discharge. It should be noted by regulation, a UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of a pattern of misconduct. 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 11 May 2016, 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 SPD/RE Code to: No Change e. Restore Grade to: No Change AUTHENTICATING OFFICIAL: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School OAD - Ordered to Active Duty SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 HD - Honorable Discharge OMPF - Official Military Personnel File TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP – Military Police PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS – Entry Level Status IADT – Initial Active Duty Training RE - Reentry UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable SCM - Summary Court Martial ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20150001840 1