1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 28 May 2015 b. Date Received: 11 June 2015 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 effect, he served the Army honorably during his entire career, while fighting for his freedom during a 12-month deployment and always carried himself with respect. The applicant states that he was discharged because he was convicted of a serious offense during his time in service, he served his time and returned to the Army and continued to service honorably. He contends that one mistake should not have determined his whole military career. The applicant states that he did not commit a crime, he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 31 August 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General, Under Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 24 December 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 2 July 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: committed armed and aggravated robbery and falsely reporting his vehicle as stolen (24 December 2010); and convicted of aggravated armed robbery and subsequently sentenced to prison for a total of 21 months, until release on 5 September 2012 (14 January 2011). (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: Conditionally waived, 11 July 2013, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable that a general, under honorable. On 3 October 2013, the separation authority, disapproved the applicant’s requested conditional waiver and referred his separation packet to an administrative separation board. (5) Administrative Separation Board: 24 October 2013 (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 5 December 2013 / General, Under Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 8 April 2010 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 115 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-4 / 92G10, Food Service Specialist / 3 years, 7 months, and 24 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: RA, 10 September 2008 – 7 April 2010 / HD e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (21 December 2009 – 21 December 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, ACM-2CS, NDSM, GWTSM, ASR, OSR, CAB g. Performance Ratings: N/A h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers), reflect an Administrative Separation Board convened on 24 October 2013, to determine whether the applicant should be separated from the United States Army, under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, Commission of Serious Offense. Administrative Separation Board Findings, prepared by the board recorder, and the Verbatim Findings and Recommendations, signed by the board members, reflect the applicant was found to have committed Armed Robbery on 24 December 2010 was supported by a preponderance of the evidence; the applicant committed Aggravated Robbery on 24 December 2010, was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence; the applicant falsely reported his vehicle stolen on 24 December 2010, was supported by a preponderance of the evidence; and the allegation of conviction on 14 January 2011 of Aggravated Armed Robbery in the notice of the proposed separation was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In view of the finding, the board recommended that the applicant be separated from the United States Army with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. i. Lost Time: 600 days (Confinement Civilian Authority, 14 January 2011 – 4 September 2012) j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, dated 28 May 2015; several character letters; and a letter from his brother indicating the applicant was not a part of a crime he was accused of. 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 14-12c states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(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 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. The applicant contends that he served the Army honorably during his career, which included a 12-month deployment. The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant contends that his discharge was the result of one mistake and that it should not have determined his whole military career. Although an isolated incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by an isolated incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. Furthermore, by regulation, a UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of Misconduct (Serious Offense). It appears the applicant’s generally good record of service was the basis for him receiving a GD instead of the normal UOTHC 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 character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant’s performance. They all recognize his good conduct while in the Army; however, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant’s chain of command. 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. 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 31 August 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 (Restoration of) Grade to: No Change AUTHENTICATING OFFICIAL: COL, US ARMY Presiding Officer Army Discharge Review Board Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NA - Not applicable 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 OAD - Ordered to Active Duty SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training 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 MST – Military Sexual Trauma RE - Reentry UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20150010173 2