1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 18 April 2016 b. Date Received: 2 May 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 and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the ultimate decision made by the chain of command went against Army Law, Regulation and Equity. Prior to his discharge he was very uneducated about Army Regulations and his past supervisors used that against him during certain predicaments. Based upon these factors, what would be labeled as an offense in his case would have been disregarded as it would have went against Army judification (sic) being that it was unjust. His ignorance allowed his supervisors to take advantage of him in critical situations regarding Army Regulations. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 23 June 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 6 April 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 10 March 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: on 1 October 2015, he willfully disobeyed SFC G, when he ordered him to be quiet and quit running his mouth; he disrespected SFC G on 1 October 2015, when he told him, "that's bullshit," or words to that effect; and, he disrespected SGT P on 23 July 2015, when he said to him, "Fuck you," or words to that effect. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 16 March 2016 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 22 March 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 March 2013 / 3 years, 16 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 / HS Graduate / 91 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 11B10, Infantryman / 3 years, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 19 November 2015, for disobeying a lawful order (1 October 2015); disrespectful in deportment toward a noncommissioned officer (1 October 2015); disrespectful language toward a noncommissioned officer (23 July 2015); and, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (9 July 2015). The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $360 pay; and, extra duty and restriction for 14 days. FG Article 15, dated 13 November 2014, for being AWOL (between 23 September 2014 and 5 October 2014). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $765 pay per month for two months; and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 23 September 2014; and, From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 6 October 2014. Butler Police Department, Incident Report, dated 19 January 2016, reflects the applicant was arrested for: driving while license suspended; suspended registration; and, speeding 82 MPH in a 55 MPH zone. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 12 days (AWOL, 23 September 2014 - 5 October 2014) / Surrendered to Military Authorities j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 11 February 2016, reflects the applicant was cleared for administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with an Occupational problems (AXIS I). 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 14-12c 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. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (serious offense). 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his 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 contends the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed. However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is "JKQ." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends he was uneducated about Army regulations and his chain of command used this against him. His discharge is unjust because the Army did not follow Army Regulations during his separation process. However, 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. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge. 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 23 June 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 new Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. SPD/RE Code Change to: No Change f. Restoration to Grade: 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 AR20160009263 3