1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 19 May 2017 b. Date Received: 26 May 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 pertinent part and in effect, he only had two Article 15 actions in his four years of service. His performance evaluations were all good, except for the two incidents. He has a service-connected disability for his knee injury. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 17 October 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: 15 January 2008 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 14 December 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for consistently failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time, driving while under the influence of alcohol, underage drinking, being AWOL from 17 September 2007 to 3 October 2007, and Driving on post while his post driving privileges were revoked. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: Waived, 13 (sic) December 2007 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 14 December 2007 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 25 January 2007 / 3 years, 15 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / GED / 117 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 63B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic / 3 years, 10 months, 14 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR (2 March 2004 to 21 October 2005) / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR; AFRM-M DEV g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Negative counseling statements for failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on numerous occasions; being derelict in the performance of his assigned duties; violating the Army and barracks alcohol policies; underage drinking; violating the weekend safety briefing; his actions unbecoming of a Soldier; being irresponsible; being AWOL; operating a motor vehicle with a suspended license; and driving privileges suspended. Two DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Actions) reflect the following statuses of the applicant: PDY to AWOL, effective 17 September 2007 AWOL to PDY, effective 3 October 2007 FG Article 15, dated 3 December 2007, (NIF, but according to the commander's report and continuation page of the Article 15) for violating Article 112a, UCMJ, and being AWOL on 17 September 2007, and remained absent until 3 October 2007. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $650 pay per month for two months, and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 12 December 2007, indicates the applicant was cleared for administrative action deemed appropriate by his command. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None reflected on DD Form 214 / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 19 May 2017; DD Form 214 (29 August 2006); DD Form 214 (15 January 2008); and discharge orders. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided 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. 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 "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, pattern of misconduct. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKA" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant's available record of service, and 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. By the pattern of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and marred the quality of his service that ultimately caused his discharge from the Army. 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 incidents that led to two Article 15 actions that led to his discharge were the only one in his entire Army career. The bases for the two UCMJ actions were discrediting entries that constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by even a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incidents of misconduct, the Board can find that his complete period of service and accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. The applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded because he has a service-connected disability for his knee injury. However, the issue the applicant submitted is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued. 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 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 17 October 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 AR20170009395 1