1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 15 November 2016 b. Date Received: 18 November 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 was seriously injured the day before his deployment. His bags and equipment, were packed from his house by his wife and two friends. He deployed to aid his unit and there was a doctor that went with him to give him pain shots. During his second injury, a Soldier went into a civilian backpack and found his wife's small pistol along with shooting range equipment. Later, he found out that they had sent a personal pack that he and his wife had used at a shooting range two days prior to his deployment. He states, his wife did not remove her pistol and equipment and in haste, she thought it was his needed gear. She told the cadre this as well. The applicant states, he did not have access to the bag and the bag was found by Soldiers doing and inventory of his things after he flew out. He states, he volunteered to do the right thing and deploy while injured. He had not opportunity to packed or review his belongings and he had no sight of them. He is not denying the weapon was found, but the weapon was sent mistakenly by others. He had no knowledge of the weapon, but he was told by cadre that regardless, he was ultimately responsible. He believes that this is unfair and unjust. He sustained numerous injuries and lifelong pain and suffering as a disabled person. He has been a patient at the VA, since his return home. He will be unable to ever work or return to any form of duty as a result of his injuries. He desires to have his record cleared as a small gratification for giving above and beyond in his service. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 21 February 2018, 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 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 27 September 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 July 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Multiple false official statements, failure to report, wearing unauthorized insignia and disobeying General Order No. 1. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 19 July 2007 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 19 July 2007, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of his case before an administrative separation board. On 27 July 2007, the separation authority directed that an administrative separation board be convened in accordance with the instructions in the appointment memorandum, dated 20 June 2007. The service record is void of any evidence that the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board or that a board was ever convened. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 7 September 2007 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 17 May 2006 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 40 / Bachelor's Degree / 115 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 12 years, 7 months, 24 days / The applicant's DD Form 214, blocks 12d and e, do not correctly reflect his Total Prior Service and Total Prior Inactive Service. d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USNR, 10 April 1986 - 22 October 1986 / HD USAR, 23 October 1986 - 6 April 1994 / NIF (Break in Service) RA, 17 October 2000 - 3 April 2001 / UNC (Break in Service) ARNG, 18 July 2003 - 24 December 2004 / NA AD, 25 December 2004 - 30 November 2005 / NIF (Concurrent Service) ARNG, 1 December 2005 - 16 May 2006 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (1 January 2007 - 1 September 2007) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCAM, ICM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 25 June 2007, for failing to obey a lawful order, CENTCOM General Order No. 1, by wrongfully bringing a privately owned weapon into the CENTCOM Area of Operations (13 January 2007). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $633 pay per month for two months (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 25 June 2007, 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. Investigator's Findings and Recommendations, dated 16 January 2007, reflects: The applicant had in his possession one 9mm Kel-Tec pistol. He had been deployed to a CENTCOM AO in the past and should have known it was unauthorized to possess a privately owned weapon. In fact if he claimed to be a CID agent when deployed in 2003, he would have known it was unauthorized to possess a privately owned weapon in a CENTCOM AO. The investigating officer (IO) recommended the chain of command initiate UCMJ action. The applicant had in his possession 10 live rounds in the magazine of the 9mm in question. The ammo possessed could have been privately owned or range ammunition. The fact the ammunition was in the magazine in the well of the pistol suggests the applicant had no intentions of turning the ammunition in. The IO recommended to check DODIC on the 9mm to prove whether the ammunition is military or civilian. The applicant had in his possession 37 live rounds of 5.56. At the range he was issued 36 rounds. It is unauthorized to remove ammunition from the range. The IO recommended the chain of command initiate UCMJ action. The applicant had in his possession what appeared to be a CID badge. At the time the IO recommended further investigation be conducted in order to determine the validity of the badge and his service with the CID. Agent's Investigation Report, dated 20 July 2007, reflects on 20 July 2007, Special Agent (SA) M coordinated with SA H, who provided the following information on the applicant: The applicant was assigned to the unit as a clerk and did not fill a Special Agent slot. He applied for the CID program; however, he was rejected due to his finances. He had went around the unit when he applied and then made a complaint because the unit would not help him apply. He never performed any Special Agent duties and was not told he was a Special Agent, nor that he was filling a Special Agent slot. He had gone on Temporary Duty (TDY), while assigned to the unit and filed a false TDY voucher, claiming 1800 in and around miles, when he was not authorized in and around mileage. Further he did not pay approximately $600, of his lodging costs, which caused the lodging manager to contact the unit. While serving as a mechanic in the unit, the applicant had sent an email which SA H had seen, where he listed himself as Special Agent MCBRAYER in the signature block. SA H had talked to him about purporting himself as a Special Agent and told him not to ever do it again. He was reassigned to a unit at Fort Rucker, AL, where he convinced a Training Officer that he was in the CID program and wanted to put in a Warrant Officer Packet. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 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 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 his discharge is unfair because he was not aware he was discharged for something that he was not aware of. He contends his unit told him that he was responsible for having a privately owned weapon during a deployment, even though he did know or pack the weapon in his bags. 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. Further, the evidence of record reflects the applicant was separated for a pattern of misconduct based on several acts of misconduct, not solely, the unauthorized weapon during a deployement. 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 21 February 2018, 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 AR20160019014 2