1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 6 April 2017 b. Date Received: 10 April 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, how his military career ended is one of his biggest regrets. He was 17 years old when he joined and he wanted to serve the country after 9/11. His life prior to that was pure chaos and he had been homeless for four years before entering a recruiter's office. He states, he sought out the military for a chance to be something better than his drug addicted parents. Since he was raising himself, he was lost, immature, and stubborn and he had never really had any discipline or respect for authority. When he looks back now, the Army saved his life, though he did not appreciate the tremendous opportunity that he had then. He states that he sees now that he was a fool and wasted a lot of time for him and the people who had to work around him. Since his discharge, he has grown up to be a respected member of his community. He is an Academic Advisor for a community college working with at risk youth and veterans. He is working on his third degree majoring in Social Change and Counseling. He has an eight year old son who the applicant tries to be a positive role-model for and ensure he does not have the same experiences he did. The applicant is ashamed of how he left the military because he simply is not that person any more. He has worked for this current college for over four years and he has demonstrated the ability to follow instructions from others and how to be a leader. The values he took for granted in the Army, now serve him daily. If he could go back, he would have handled his military career much differently. Since he cannot, he does his best every single day to be selfless in his service and commitment to others. He believes that he is now what the Army wanted him to be, and pleads with the Board to look at his change since his discharge, and know that he is reformed and ready to give back. He desires to have pride in his service and in the lessons that he learned and carries still today. He wants to continue helping his community and other veterans who are unsure of what to do and he wants to be able to say that he has an honorable discharge, instead of being embarrassed. He further states, he really wants to show the Board that he has completely turned his life around and the Board would see the man he is today is nothing like the boy who joined the Army 16 years ago. He is sincere about his desire to raise a good family and to serve his community through tireless work and volunteering. He would do anything to go back and right the wrongs of his past, but since that is not an option, he can only try to shape the future through his son and the students that he works with daily. He is thankful to the Army for the lessons it instilled in him and tried to teach him, but at the time, he just was not ready to receive them. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 17 August 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length of service and post-service accomplishments and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. (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: 11 January 2005 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 6 December 2004 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He violated Article 92, failure to obey a lawful regulation, on 4 March 2004. He violated Article 86, failure to go his place of duty, on 1 June 2004. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 6 December 2004, the applicant waived his rights to consult with a JAG officer. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 20 December 2004 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 31 October 2002 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 17 / GED / 109 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 42L10, Administrative Specialist / 2 years, 2 months, 11 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii / None f. Awards and Decorations: GWOTSM, NDSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 24 March 2004, for fail to obey a lawful regulation by wrongfully consuming alcoholic beverages (4 March 2004). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2; forfeiture of $312.13 pay; and, extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Serious Incident Report, dated 25 March 2004, reflects the applicant was arrested while on foot entering Foote gate at approximately 0330 hours on 3 March 2004. The applicant appeared to be under the influence of alcohol and was subsequently given a breath test to find out if he had alcohol in his system. The test resulted in a positive reading for alcohol at the 0.16 level. The applicant was charged with Article 92 (failure to obey a lawful order - underage drinking). The applicant was recovered by 1SG H after the military police conducted an inventory of the personal items that the applicant was arrested with and returned those items to the Soldier. The Soldier was counseled in writing that he was to remain in the barracks and not to have any more alcohol of any type to drink. The applicant was not in a state of mind that would allow him to be read his rights and was required to return to the Schofield military police station to have his rights administered. CG Article 15, dated 24 June 2004, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (1 June 2004). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $278.46 pay; extra duty for 14 days; and, restriction for 14 days (suspended). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; College Transcripts; and, a performance rating. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: He states, he volunteers in his community and is pursuing his third degree. 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 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 applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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 August 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length of service and post-service accomplishments and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JKN / 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 AR20170010508 1