1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 19 July 2017 b. Date Received: 23 July 2017 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) to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he was a young Soldier entering the service without a full understanding of the consequences of his actions. He has been the recipient of many accolades, received numerous awards and decorations and served a combat tour. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 4 May 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: Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 25 March 2003 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 25 February 2003 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x5 (2 March 2002, 4 March 2002, 10 January 2003, 11 January 2003 and 12 January 2003); without authority, absented himself from his unit (7 September 2002 until 8 September 2002); violate a lawful general regulation, by wrongfully storing a mortar round in his barracks room (8 September 2002); having been restricted to the limits of the battalion area, by a person authorized to do so, did break said restriction (13 March 2002); a portion of the punishment that was imposed upon him on (13 March 2002), was suspended, the suspension was vacated on 19 March 2002, based on the following offenses: having received a lawful order from SFC E., a noncommissioned officer, to take the trash which was overflowing and empty it, disobeyed a lawful order (8 March 2002); assault PV2 B.by striking at him with a closed fist (4 September 2002); and without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x4 (25 October 2002, 20 November 2002, 21 November 2002 and 10 January 2003). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 5 March 2003 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 6 March 2003 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 26 October 2000 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 years / HS Graduate / 98 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92G1P, Food Service Specialist / 2 years, 5 months 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 12 March 2002, for without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x2 (2 March 2002 and 4 March 2002); reduction to PV2 / E-2; forfeiture of$ 287 pay for one month (suspended), extra duty and restriction for 14 days. On 19 May 2002, the suspension of punishment of forfeiture of $287 pay for one month, was vacated for the new offense of having been restricted to the limits of the battalion area, by a person authorized to do so, did break said restriction (13 March 2002). CG Article 15, dated 27 September 2002, for without authority, absent yourself from his unit (7 September 2002 until 8 September 2002; and violate a lawful general regulation, by wrongfully storing a mortar round in his barracks room (8 September 2002); forfeiture of $289 pay for one month, reduction to PV2 / E-2; restriction and extra duty for 14 days CG Article 15, dated 28 January 2003, for without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x3 (10 January 2003, 11 January 2003 and 12 January 2003); reduction PVT / E-1, forfeiture of $258 pay for one month, restriction and extra duty for 14 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 10 February 2003, relates that the applicant was mentally responsible for his behavior, could distinguish right from wrong, and possessed sufficient mental capacity. There was no evidence of an emotional or mental disorder of psychiatric significance to warrant disposition through medical channels. He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action and or training deemed appropriate by Command. The applicant received numerous negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL for 2 days (7 September 2002 until 8 September 2002); however, this period of lost time is not annotated on the DD Form 214 block 29 dates of time lost during this period. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); Enlisted Record Brief; Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard; four NCOERs; two AERs; Special Operations Combative Program Level I and II Courses, diplomas; five certificates of training; memorandum; Certification as Military Passport Acceptance Agent; Special Forces M-4 Carbine Long Range Marksmanship Course; NATO certificate; Foreign Badge memorandum; Acceptance and Wear of Foreign Badge (Brazilian Parachutist Badge); two graduation certificates; four ARCOM Citations; five AAM Citations; AGCM Orders 344-42, 344-43 and 344-18; and CAB Orders 255- 117. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant reenlisted in the Army in 2007 and continues to serve. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted 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 the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) 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 documented pattern of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting 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, such that he should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant seeks relief contending, he was a young Soldier entering the service without a full understanding of the consequences of his actions. The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The applicant further contends, he has been the recipient of many accolades, received numerous awards and decorations and served a combat tour. The applicant's post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application and in the documents with the application. 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 4 May 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 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 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 AR20170001196 1