1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 21 February 2017 b. Date Received: 23 February 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, the number of offenses he committed and the length of time between them was few and far between. He received numerous awards and decorations for the length of time he served. His unit failed to provide any sort of rehabilitation or professional counseling for the issues he was dealing with. He does not believe he demonstrated a pattern of misconduct and his service record shows his exemplary performance outweighs the misconduct by a long shot. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 11 June 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, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 7 March 2012 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 24 February 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; he received a FG Article 15 on 12 December 2010; he failed to report (14 July 2011 on or about 11 October 2011; and he was arrested for assault and a DWI (1 January 2012). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 24 February 2012, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF, General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 29 October 2008 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 years / HS Graduate / 108 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 14H10, Air Defense Enhanced / 11B1O, Infantryman / 8 years, 7 months, 7 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 31 July 2003 to 28 October 2008 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / SWA / Iraq, 27 November 2007 to 5 January 2009, Bahrain, 15 July 2010 to 14 May 2011 and Afghanistan, 5 November 2006 to 3 March 2007 f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, AAM-5, AGCM-2, NDSM, ACM-CS, ICM-2CS, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, KDSM, HSM, NOPDR, ASR, OSR-3, NATO MDL, CIB, EIB, VUA g. Performance Ratings: 1 October 2008 to 8 July 2010, Among The Best 7 July 2010 to 12 December 2010, Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 12 January 2012, revealed that the applicant screened for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and mild Traumatic Brain Injury, both screens were negative. He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative separation under Chapter 14 as deemed appropriate by command. FG Article 15, dated 12 December 2010, for wrongfully having sexual intercourse with SPC K.J., a married woman not his wife between (1 November 2009 and 31 July 2010); wrongfully having sexual intercourse with PFC A.W., a married woman not his wife between (1 August 2010 and 1 September 2010); violated a lawful general regulation, by causing actual or perceived partiality or unfairness between (1 November 2009 and 31 July 2010); and violated a lawful general regulation, by compromising or appear to compromise the integrity of supervisory authority or the chain of command between (1 August 2010 and 9 November 2010); reduction to SPC / E-4, forfeiture of $1,146.00 pay for two months, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. The applicant received numerous negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and being notified of pending separation action. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application (six pages). 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 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 and the issues 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, the number of offenses he committed and the length of time between them was few and far between; he does not believe he demonstrated a pattern of misconduct and his service record shows his exemplary performance outweighs the misconduct by a long shot. The service record indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant's numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. 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 applicant further contends, he received numerous awards and decorations for the length of time he served. 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 also contends, his unit failed to provide any sort of rehabilitation or professional counseling for the issues he was dealing with. The evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishment. The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts. AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16d(2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements states, the rehabilitative requirements may be waived by the separation authority in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate that such transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. After reviewing the applicant's discharge packet, the separation authority properly waived the rehabilitative requirements. 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 11 June 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 AR20170002799 1