1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 2 March 2017 b. Date Received: 16 March 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, does not believe the applicant should have been discharged. The applicant was getting in trouble due to drinking, but had noticed before the separation packet had been started. The applicant sought help, but shortly thereafter, without any notice or warning, was chaptered. The applicant was never allowed a chance to get better and believed that the chain of command was supposed to be there to help, not harm their Soldiers. Though the applicant had already completed an honorable term, with no negative infractions when the discharge process started, the applicant felt helpless. The applicant does not know why the applicant picked up the habit, but has been clean for over a year and believes the Army should have helped instead of punishing. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 7 August 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 6 November 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 29 September 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He failed to be at his appointed place of duty on diverse occasions between on or about 1 July 2015 and on or about 1 September 2015; He failed to obey a direct order from SGT E and SGT D on or about 16 February 2015; He was incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties; through previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor on or about 1 September 2015; He participated in a breach of the peace by engaging in a night altercation with PVT Z in front of the barracks on or about 2 April 2015; and, He lost his military identification card and meal card on or about 8 May 2015. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 30 September 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 16 October 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 7 October 2014 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 108 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 4 years, 11 months, 19 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 18 November 2010 - 6 October 2014 / HD AD, 12 July 2012 - 18 September 2012 / HD (Concurrent Service) 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 28 April 2015, for participating in a breach of the peace by engaging in a night altercation with PVT Z in front of the barracks (2 April 2015). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; extra duty for 14 days; and, restriction for 14 days (suspended). CG Article 15, dated 3 September 2015, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (1 July and 1 September 2015). This is in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. The punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction for 5 days. CG Article 15, dated 24 September 2015, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on two occasions (16 September 2015); make a false official statement (16 September 2015); and, as a result of wrongful previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor or drugs, incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties (16 September 2015). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2; extra duty and restriction for 14 days; and, oral reprimand. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 8 September 2015, 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. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application. 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 he never received help from his chain of command. However, 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. The applicant contends he was not afforded the opportunity for rehabilitation. However, 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. The applicant contends he was discharged without any warning or notice. 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. 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 7 August 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 AR20170003807 1