1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 13 January 2015 b. Date Received: 2 February 2017 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, his juvenile records were used to dismantle his character. He states, his chain of command planted evidence in government quarters and then illegal search and seizure methods were used to find the evidence. His chain of command used their grade and position to force him to an Article 15 hearing and then fast tracked his discharge to prevent the applicant the right to appeal the judgement. He had no history of disciplinary actions prior to his assignment in this unit. Several representatives in the chain of command are willing to make statements in order to prove the allegations and he states, several noncommissioned officers are willing to testify. He states, before CPT X was in command of his unit, the applicant was a team leader; he was promoted to CPL because of his leadership qualities; and, Soldiers looked up to him. He states, he was falsely accused of sexual harassment, but even after he proved the accusations were false, they still charged him with one of three counts of sexual harassment. He states that he proved the charges against him were hearsay, which is not admissible in a court-martial. He was charged with 15 different violations of the UCMJ, but he was only found guilty of four. He states, because he attempted to beat those four charges at his chapter hearing, he never received a chapter board. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 13 July 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 (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 28 May 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 9 April 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 25 and 26 September 2013, he failed to go to his appointed place of duty. On or about 19 August 2013, he behaved himself with disrespect towards 2LT X by saying to him, "Sir, I'm going to need that in writing," or words to that effect and walking away while he was talking to him. On 26 August 2013, he willfully disobeyed a lawful order from SSG X to write a 2,000 word essay on respect. Between on or about 1 May and on or about 30 June 2013, he was disorderly, to wit: by stating to SPC X, "I want to be your permanent battle buddy," or words to that effect while licking his lips. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 16 April 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 2 May 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 13 June 2012 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 99 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 4 years, 10 months, 20 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 9 July 2009 - 12 June 2012 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Iraq (12 July 2011 - 31 December 2011), Kuwait (1 January 2012 - 17 July 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial, dated 8 January 2014, reflects the applicant was charged with four specifications of violation of Article 86; two specifications of violation of Article 89; one specification of violation of Article 91; two specifications of violation of Article 108; one specification of violation of Article 128; and, five specifications of violation of Article 134. The applicant pled guilty to two specifications. The applicant was found guilty of the following: Two specifications of violation of Article 86, for without authority fail to go to appointed place of duty, to wit: 0630 formation 25 and 26 September 2013; One specification of violation of Article 89, for behaving with disrespect toward 2LT X (19 August 2013); One specification of violation of Article 91, for willfully disobeying a lawful order from SSG X, to write an essay (26 August 2013). One specification of violation of Article 134, for being disorderly by stating to SPC X "I want to be your permanent battle buddy," or words to that effect while licking his lips, which conduct under the circumstances was prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces (1 May 2013). The sentenced adjudged: Forfeiture $858.00 pay per month for one month; and, reduction to E-2. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 4 March 2014, 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. FG Article 15, dated 16 May 2014, for behaving with disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer (28 April 2014); for offering violence against a superior commissioned officer (28 April 2014); and, for wrongfully possessing some amount of marijuana (21 February 2014). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $735 pay per month for two months; and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Commander's Inquiry, dated 12 June 2013, reflects an investigation officer found that the applicant, during duty hours, made inappropriate remarks to female Soldier that according to 3ID Command Policy Letter No. 4 and Dragon Policy Letter No. 5 can be classified as sexual harassment. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214 and 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. 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 that he had good service which included a combat tour. 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 applicant contends his chain of command planted evidence in government quarters and then used illegal search and seizure methods to find the evidence. His chain of command used their grade and position to force him to an Article 15 hearing and then fast tracked his discharge to prevent the applicant the right to appeal the judgement. 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, if the applicant believes his Article 15 process was not proper, he may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. The applicant contends that he was not given the opportunity to appear before an administrative separation board. However, the evidence the record reflects that the applicant's case and or service did not meet the eligibility requirements for and administrative separation board. The applicant claims that prior to being assigned to his last unit, he never had any offenses. However, 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. Further, a Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. 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 13 July 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 AR20170003322 1