1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 1 June 2017 b. Date Received: 5 June 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, his discharge was unfair, because none of his commanding officers never sat down to discuss with him the personal issues that caused his pattern of misconduct. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 3 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: 25 October 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 10 September 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Between 1 May 2012 and 23 July 2013, he failed to report to his appointed place of duty. On 23 January 2013, he was disrespectful in language towards SSG L.M.S. On divers occasions, between 15 October 2011 and 23 January 2013, he failed to obey orders given to him by CPT K.R. and SGT R.V. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: Waived, 24 September 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 7 October 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 26 April 2011 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / HS Graduate / 91 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 13P10, Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) Operations/Fire Direction Specialist / 2 years, 6 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / United Arab Emirates (23 August 2012 to 10 May 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM; NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR; OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 29 November 2011, for disobeying a commissioned officer between 15 October 2011 and 2 November 2011. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $733 pay per month for two months, and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. CG Article 15, dated 20 June 2012, for failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 1 May 2012. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $347 (suspended), and 14 days of extra duty and restriction. Record of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 9 August 2012, indicates that the punishment of forfeiture of $347 imposed on 20 June 2012, was vacated due to the applicant failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 1 May 2012 (sic ?). CG Article 15, dated 11 February 2013, for being disrespectful in language towards an NCO on 21 January 2013, and disobeying an NCO on 22 January 2013. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1 (suspended), and 14 days of extra duty and restriction. Negative counseling statements for failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time, PT formation, on several occasions. Record of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 24 July 2013, indicates that the punishment of a reduction to E-1 imposed on 11 February 2013, was vacated due to the applicant failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 23 July 2013. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 30 July 2013, indicates the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for chapter separation. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 1 June 2017. 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 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 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 his commanding officers never sat down to discuss with him the personal issues that caused his pattern of misconduct. However, before initiating discharge proceedings, the command ensured the applicant was appropriately counseled about his deficiencies which could lead to separation. The command made an assessment of the applicant's potential for becoming a fully satisfactory Soldier. The evidence contained in the service record establishes the applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome noted deficiencies by counseling and imposition of Article 15 punishments. As the applicant did not subsequently conform to required standards of discipline and performance, the command appropriately determined the applicant did not demonstrate the potential for further military service. Further, the applicant contends he is entitled to an upgrade of his discharge because of mitigating circumstances which contributed to his misconduct. Specifically, he claims personal issues resulted in his discharge. While the applicant may believe his personal issues were the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. 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 3 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 AR20170010172 1