1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 10 October 2015 b. Date Received: 13 October 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 would like an upgrade for the purpose of being able to receive his G.I. Bill benefits. He contends he has waited the required amount of time to receive or request an upgrade and that he has served and received many military accolades to back his claim. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 15 February 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: 4 March 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 15 December 2009 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: received 16 negative counseling statements for failing to report and disobeying a noncommissioned officer; and, received two Field Grade Article 15's for failing to report on multiple occasions. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 29 December 2009 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 30 January 2007 / 4 years, 20 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / GED / 97 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 42A10, Human Resources Specialist / 3 years, 1 month, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany /None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, NOPDR, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 17 July 2009, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (17 February; 1, 5, and 11 June 2009) and disobeying a lawful order from a senior noncommissioned officer (16 June 2009). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2 (reduction below the grade of E-3 was suspended), forfeiture of $960 pay per month for two months (suspended), 45 days extra duty and restriction (suspended). FG Article 15, dated 21 August 2009, for being absent from his unit (29 July 2009 to 30 July 2009). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2 (suspended), forfeiture of $784 (suspended), 14 days extra duty, and 30 days restriction. Mental Status Evaluation, dated 2 December 2009, reflects the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings and he was mentally responsible. The applicant received numerous negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and performance counseling. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and DD Form 149. 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 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, such that he should have been retained on Active duty. The applicant expressed his desire for an upgrade for the purpose of being able to receive his GI Bill benefits. However, eligibility for veteran's 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. He contends he has waited the required amount of time to receive or request an upgrade and that he has served and received many military accolades to back his claim. However, the US Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to upgrade a discharge based on time elapsed since the discharge. Each case is decided on its own merits based on all factors contained in the official record or as submitted by the applicant. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable. 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 15 February 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 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: 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 AR20150017985 1