1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 24 July 2015 b. Date Received: 19 January 2016 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 of his discharge for the purpose of being able to continue his education using his GI Bill benefits and to continue serving his country. He contends he is service connected with an 80 percent disability. His injury and physical inability to perform is limiting his options for means to support his family. The characterization of service he received does not correctly justify the Soldier he was nor the man he is today because of the Army. However, his discharge status explains his mistakes and action while he was in the military. His request for a change at this time defines how the military changed him positively as a veteran today. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 19 July 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: 20 December 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 25 September 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for being absent without leave from 11 June 2012 to 14 June 2012; Being derelict in the performance of his duties; and Failing to be at his appointed place of duty on diverse occasions (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 21 September 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 26 November 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 January 2011 / 3 years, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / HS Graduate / 88 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 92G10, Food Service Specialist / 1 year, 11 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 5 July 2012, for being absent without leave from 11 June 2012 until his return on 14 June 2012. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $745 for two months (suspended), 45 days extra duty and restriction, and an oral reprimand. The Report of Medical Examination, dated 20 June 2012, makes reference to the applicant was receiving treatment for a fracture to his C3-4, had an issue of hearing lost, and was talking to a psychologist. Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation, dated 10 July 2012, indicates the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and could appreciated the difference between right and wrong. It was noted from a psychiatric perspective, the applicant meet medical retention standards IAW AR 40-501 and was psychiatrically cleared for administrative separation IAW AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c. The applicant received several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and performance counseling. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL 3 days (11 June 2012 to 13 June 2012) / retuned on his own j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 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 general (under 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 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 she should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant seeks relief contending he is receiving 80 percent service connected percent disability. His injury and physical inability to perform is limiting his options for means to support his family. The applicant contentions were noted; however, the service record does not support the applicant's contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Further, the record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service with either medical limitation or medication. The applicant contends the characterization of service he received does not correctly justify the Soldier he was nor the man he is today because of the Army. However, his discharge status explains his mistakes and action while he was in the military. His request for a change at this time defines how the military changed him positively as a veteran today. It should be noted by regulation, an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of pattern of misconduct. It appears the applicant's generally good record of service was the basis for his receiving a GD instead of the normal UOTHC discharge. The applicant expressed his desire for an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to continue his education using his GI Bill benefits and to continue serving his country. 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. 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. 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 19 July 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 Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change f. 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 AR20160002597 1