1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 24 January 2017 b. Date Received: 10 February 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, was discharged due to the security clearance being suspended. The applicant's clearance was denied due to high debt. The debt that was discovered under the applicant's name, but belonged to the father. The last four numbers of the social security number and the father's social security number were only one number different. This was a common problem they often faced when collections would call the applicant asking to pay the father's debt. The applicant did not have any debt. The applicant states there was no counseling's or bad remarks in the record to justify the separation or reentry code for unsatisfactory performance. The applicant's counseling form reflects being counseled due to security clearance suspension and not anything to do with unsatisfactory performance. They also informed the applicant that if no other MOS' were available, the applicant would be discharged under chapter 13. The applicant does not understand why the applicant received this separation code and reentry code. Review of the applicant's military records will reflect no negative remarks that would justify these codes. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 31 May 2019 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: Unsatisfactory Performance / AR 635- 200 / Chapter 13 / JHJ / RE-3 / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 29 March 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 5 March 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: His denial of a security clearance for the 25U Course: he failed to submit materials to respond to the Letter of Intent to Deny Security Clearance (LOI). A subsequent request to reclassify him was denied by Human Resources Command (HRC). (3) Recommended Characterization: Honorable (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 5 March 2012 the applicant waived his rights to consult with a JAG officer. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 20 March 2012 / Honorable 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 June 2011 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 94 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / None / 9 months, 3 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Memorandum, dated 3 August 2010, informing the applicant of the intent to deny his security clearance. Memorandum, dated 13 January 2012, reflects the applicant had not complied with the 60-day requirement to respond to the Letter of Intent to Deny Security Clearance (LOI). Immediate action was required to ensure the applicant was reclassified in an MOS, which did not require access to classified information. Memorandum, dated 23 January 2012, reflects the request for the applicant's reclassification, had been disapproved. No MOS's were available in the Army Training Requirements and Resources System for his reclassification. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 9 February 2012, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. Several Developmental Counseling Forms, for Intent to deny a security clearance and possible initiation of chapter 13 proceedings, if adequate response is not submitted in 60 days; Remind the applicant of the actions required to rebut the denial of his security clearance and failure to do so could result in his separation from the Army; and, Separation actions for failure to obtain a security clearance or other available MOS. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; DD Form 214; three certificates; Social Security Administration Printout; Affidavit; DA Form 4856. 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 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this Chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. Army policy states that a general, under honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, an honorable discharge may be granted in meritorious cases. 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 "JHJ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JHJ" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests a narrative reason change. 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 because he was discharged for failing to obtain a security cleanance and not anything to do with unsatisfactory performance. However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions). The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Unsatisfactory Performance," and the separation code is "JHJ." 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 not counseled for unsatisfactory performance. 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 the record reflects the applicant had received counseling regarding required actions to rebut the denial of his security clearance and that he had failed to do so. The applicant contends that he had good service. 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 is to be commended for his accomplishments. 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 31 May 2019 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 AR20170002174 1