1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 14 April 2016 b. Date Received: 18 April 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his military record was impeccable during his entire military career as a Solider. His first and only incident that occurred during his military career was that his house did not meet housing cleanliness standards, and he was apprehended and suspected of endangering the welfare of a child. The Cabinet for Health and Family Services found the allegations against he and his wife of endangering the welfare of a child was unsubstantiated, which was the reason for his discharge. He was never charged with or found guilty of child neglect/endangerment, nor did he receive any non-judicial punishment or tried by court-martial for the child neglect/endangerment, so he did not commit a serious offense. He believes it is only fair that he receive an honorable characterization of service and his reentry code be changed from RE code 3 to 1, so he is able to serve his country and community again. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 12 September 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: 15 December 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 15 October 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason for his discharge; endangering the welfare of R.A. D., a child under the age of 16 years, by having unsanitary living conditions (7 July 2015). (3) Recommended Characterization: General, Under Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 20 October 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 20 November 2015 / General, Under Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 26 October 2012 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 21 years / HS Graduate / 110 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: SPC / E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 5 years, 4 months and 15 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: RA (1 June 2010-25 October 2012) / HD e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (20 May 2011-21 December 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, ICM-W/CS, GWTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: The applicant received a negative counseling statement for his quarters being in an unsatisfactory state of cleanliness. i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 31 August 2015, reflects the applicant had an Axis I of a phase of life or life circumstance problem. He was assessed for PTSD; he does endorse some symptoms, but they are not of a severity to cause any occupational dysfunction nor would they warrant separation via medical channels. The applicant was screened for PTSD and TBI in accordance with OTSG/MEDCOM policy Memo 10-040 and the findings were negative. Soldier met medical retention per AR 40-501 and is therefore cleared for administrative separation actions as deemed appropriate by command. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Memorandum, US Attorney Western District of Kentucky, Middle District of Tennessee; Enlisted Brief Date; Army Achievement Medal Certificate; Order for Award of Air Assault Badge and ASI 2B; Order for Award of Good Conduct Medal; Army Achievement Medal Certificate; DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form, 2 pages); administrative separation letter, (four pages); Sworn Statement from M.C. (four pages); Sworn Statement from B.J.; Sworn Statement from J.W.; Patrol/TAl Case Paperwork Checklist; MPI Case Referral from H.R.; US District Court Violation Notice; DA Form 3881 for W.D.; DA Form 3881 for K.D.; Memorandum for CDR, (two pages); Rebuttal for administrative chapter with supporting documentation, (eight pages); Memorandum for Commander (two pages); Memorandum Thru Commander, (four pages); Memorandum for Commander, (two pages). 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 allows for separation for misconduct with paragraph 14-1 allowing for separating personnel because of minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, or absence without leave. Paragraph 14-2 states action will be taken to separate a Soldier for misconduct when it is clearly established that despite attempts to rehabilitate or develop him/her as a Soldier further effort is not likely to succeed; rehabilitation is impracticable or the Soldier is not amenable to rehabilitation. 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. Secretary of Defense Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments (Subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, dated September 3, 2014), provided guidance to help ensure consistency across the military services in consideration of PTSD relevant to Service Members’ discharges. “Liberal consideration will be given in petitions for changes in characterization of service to service treatment record entries which document one of more symptoms which meet the diagnostic criteria of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or related conditions. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations which document PTSD or PTSD-related conditions connected to military services. In cases where Service Records or any document from the period of service substantiated the existence of one or more symptoms of what is now recognized as PTSD or PTSD-related condition during the time of service, liberal consideration will be given to finding that PTSD existed at the time of service. Liberal consideration will also be given in cases where civilian providers confer diagnoses of PTSD or PTSD-related conditions, when case records contain narratives that support symptomatology at the time of service, or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that PTSD or a PTSD-related disorder existed at the time of discharge which might have mitigated the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. This guidance in not applicable to cases involving pre-existing conditions which are determined not to have been incurred or aggravated while in military service.” 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from 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. By the misconduct (serious offense), the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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, his military record was impeccable during his entire military career as a Solider. 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 further contends, his first and only incident that occurred during his military career was that his house did not meet housing cleanliness standards, and he was apprehended and suspected of endangering the welfare of a child. Although a single 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 a single 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. The applicant also contends, the Cabinet for Health and Family Services found the allegations against he and his wife of endangering the welfare of a child was unsubstantiated, which was the reason for his discharge. The record of evidence (letter, Cabinet for Health and Family Services), dated 9 September 2015, relates they received a report of suspected child abuse or neglect as defined in Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 600.020(1) regarding a child in his care. Based upon the information received through the investigation of this report, the allegations have been found to be unsubstantiated. The applicant additionally contends, he was never charged with or found guilty of child neglect/endangerment, nor did he receive any non-judicial punishment or tried by court-martial for the child neglect/endangerment, so he did not commit a serious offense. 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. Lastly, the applicant contends, he believes it is only fair that he receive an honorable characterization of service and his reentry code be changed from RE code 3 to 1, so he is able to serve his country and community again. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual. 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 was basis upon 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. 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. DOCUMENTS/TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the no additional documents or contentions. b. Witness: Yes (father) 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 12 September 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: 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: NA 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 VA - Veterans Affair ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20160008448 5