1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 30 April 2017 b. Date Received: 8 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 effect, his discharge is inequitable because it was based on incidents during his over 20 months of service that were directly related to his medical problems. His medical issues included tinnitus, ankle and shoulder sprains and sleep apnea. He states the evidence that he provides with his application will support his contentions. He was diagnosed with sleep apnea while he was in service, which caused him many problems. He is currently rated 60 percent service-connected disabled from the VA. He realizes that he had numerous counseling statements as well as three Article 15s. He believes that many of his counseling's were directly related to his medical problems and that he was immature at the time. He enlisted to become a construction repairman, but he was placed in the motor pool and not given the opportunity to work in his MOS. He states, he was stationed about 10 minutes from his home and the area where he grew up, which did not help the situation either. He believes that all of these factors played a role in his behavior. He states 10 years have passed since his discharge and he has grown from an immature teenager to a respectful adult who is married. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 5 September 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 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 24 June 2006 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 7 June 2006 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 11 August 2005, he received a Company Grade Article 15 for violation of Article 92, violating the curfew policy; On 9 December 2005, he received a Company Grade Article 15 for a violation of Article 86, failing to be at his appointed place of duty; On 13 April 2006, he received a Field Grade Article 15 for Article 86, failing to be at his appointed place of duty from 14 February to 13 March 2006; and, Lastly, he had been counseled on numerous occasions for not being at his appointed place of duty. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 9 June 2006 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 9 June 2006, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of his case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 14 June 2006 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 5 October 2004 / 3 years, 20 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / GED / 95 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 62B10, Construction Equipment Repairer / 1 year, 8 months, 20 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 9 December 2005, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (20 September 2005); and, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (20 October 2005). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $288 pay; and, extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 14 February 2006; and, From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 13 March 2006; CG Article 15, dated 17 March 2006, for violating a general order (30 June 2005). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $633 pay per month for two months (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. FG Article 15, dated 13 April 2006, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (25 January 2006); and, for being AWOL (between 14 February and 13 March 2006). The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $636 pay per month for two months; and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 23 March 2006, 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: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; VA Review Officer Decision letter with allied documents; and, a copy of his enlistment contract with allied documents. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: He states he has grown from an immature teenager to a respectful adult who is married. 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 that he was young and immature at the time of the discharge. The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The applicant contends that medical issues contributed to his discharge from the Army. However, the service record does not support the applicant's contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Further, the record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service with either medical limitation or medication. The applicant's issue about an upgrade based on the time that has elapsed since the discharge was carefully considered. However, the US Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 293 requesting a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines the characterization of service or the reasons for discharge, or both, were improper or inequitable. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character 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 5 September 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 AR20170010177 1