1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 7 June 2017 b. Date Received: 9 June 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, the basis for separation were the civilian charges, which were dismissed; the charge for marijuana was also dismissed by the military police; the AWOL for a period of four days was the result of having wisdom teeth removed and was prescribed the Percocet medication; and failing to provide a spouse with a dependent ID car and failing to make car payments. All the facts taking into account for the basis for discharge do not present a pattern of misconduct. The applicant is trying to get life on path after finding it difficult to do with the current discharge. The applicant is currently enrolled in school and an upgrade would be a big step towards in right direction. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 16 January 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, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 30 January 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 3 December 2008 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He was arrested in a county for criminal discharge of a firearm, criminal damage to property, battery, and defacing identification marks on a firearm. Additionally, he was AWOL from 4 October 2008 to 6 October 2008; he failed to report to formations on four occasions; he failed to obey NCOs on two occasions; he made a false official statement; he failed to provide his dependent with a military ID card; and he failed to make payment for his car for five consecutive months. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 19 December 2008 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 21 January 2009 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 October 2007 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / GED / 116 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 94A10, Land Combat Electronic Missile System Repairer / 4 years, 6 months, 8 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA (14 July 2004 to 30 September 2007) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM; GWOTSM; KDSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Negative counseling statements for his vehicle being selected for health and welfare inspection; handgun rounds and marijuana residue being found on his vehicle; being charged with possession of a controlled substance; making a verbal agreement to pay the past due balance of his car loan; involuntary separation action being initiated; providing adequate financial support to his spouse; failing to report for battalion extra duty; being AWOL; disobeying an NCO; making false official statement; failing to obey a direct order; failing to provide dependent ID card for his spouse; and failing to maintain personal finances. Military Police Report, dated 23 August 2008, for possession of controlled substance (marijuana). CG Article 15, dated 2 September 2008, for disobeying an NCO on two separate occasions between 2 July 2008 and 10 July 2008, and on 24 July 2008, and for making a false official statement on 28 July 2008. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $417, 14 days of extra duty and restriction, and an oral reprimand. Two DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Actions) document the following duty statuses of applicant: dated 6 October 2008, PDY to AWOL, effective 4 October 2008, and dated 4 November 2008, AWOL to PDY, effective 6 October 2008 Military Police Report, dated 8 October 2008, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for criminal discharge of a firearm, defacing identification mark of a firearm, battery, and criminal damage to property. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 9 days (AWOL: 4 October 2008 to 5 October 2008, for 2 days), 19 November 2008 to 23 November 2008, for 5 days), and (22 December 2008 to 23 December 2008, for 2 days) / The applicant returned to his unit during first AWOL occurrence, and mode of return on the latter two occurrences are NIF. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 7 June 2017; civilian court notice, dated 4 March 2009; Article 15, dated 2 October 2008 (set aside); and unit commander's forwarding memorandum, undated. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, in effect, he is currently enrolled in a school. 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. The applicant compromised the special trust and confidence placed in a Soldier. 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 discharge was unjust because taking into account all the facts he presented for the bases of his discharge, do not present a pattern of misconduct. However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further sufficient evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. Furthermore, the evidence contained in the service record establishes the applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome noted deficiencies by the command attempting to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of a non-judicial punishment. 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 and initiated the applicant's separation proceedings. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow a big step towards the right direction, perhaps an indication for receiving the GI Bill educational benefits and employment opportunities. However, eligibility for veterans' benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. Further, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. In consideration of the applicant's post service accomplishment by being enrolled in a school, the Board can find that his accomplishment was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. The available 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 16 January 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 AR20170010401 1