1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 8 June 2017 b. Date Received: 21 August 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 effect, in December 2012, the applicant made a monumental mistake and took for granted that it was block leave. The applicant should have been more thorough and observant with duties at the time and not taken for granted that the applicant was off duty. The applicant accepts full responsibility for this error in judgement and now realizes the problems that it caused and that it was irresponsible. The applicant would like to redeem oneself and serve the country and improve life. The applicant would like to redeem oneself while there is still the chance and greatly appreciates the opportunity. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 29 March 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: Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 27 August 2003 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 18 July 2003 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 11 June 2003, he made a false official statement to SFC J and violated a lawful general regulation by driving his POV without valid insurance; He was AWOL from 23 December 2002 to 6 January 2003; and, On 7 October 2002, he made a false official statement to CPT T. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 18 July 2003 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 25 July 2003 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 4 April 2002 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 28 / HS Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 5 years, 9 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 13 November 1997 - 12 November 2000 / HD ARNG, 13 November 2000 - 3 April 2002 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2, NDSM, AFEM, ASR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 7 October 2002, for failing to show SGT P receipts that he had paid his rent for the month of September as ordered (13 September 2002). The punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction for 14 days. CG Article 15, dated 14 November 2002, for making a false official statement by stating he had not seen legal counsel (7 October 2002). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; and, forfeiture of $342 pay; extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 23 December 2002, 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. FG Article 15, dated 19 June 2003, for violating a lawful general regulation by wrongfully driving his vehicle without valid insurance (11 June 2003); and, made a false official statement that his vehicle insurance policy was current and valid (11 June 2003). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2 (suspended); forfeiture of $645 pay per month for two months (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 45 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 23 December 2002; and, From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 6 January 2003. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 14 days (AWOL, 23 December 2002 - 6 January 2003) j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; NGB Form 22. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted 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. 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 service record indicates that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation as Misconduct. The discharge packet confirms the separation authority approved the discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b. Soldiers processed for misconduct under this provisions will be assigned a Narrative Reason for Separation as Pattern of Misconduct. The applicant contends the event that caused his discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. Further, the service record indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant's numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. However, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3. There are no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or to the RE code. An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist. If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. 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 29 March 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 AR20170014493 1