1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 1 December 2017 b. Date Received: 12 January 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable, a narrative reason change a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, joined the Army not long after turning 18 years old and was the first job after graduating. The applicant had the opportunity to go to college for baseball, but instead wanted to do something bigger. The applicant took the oath of enlistment and joined the Army, which is something the applicant took with great pride. The applicant completed basic and advanced individual training to become a Horizontal Construction Engineer. The applicant was then assigned to Fort Polk, where the applicant then deployed to Iraq from June 2008 to August 2009. The applicant states after redeployment, the applicant was placed on orders to Fort Carson, which is when the applicant met the former wife. On 31 October 2010, the wife gave birth to their first daughter and the applicant was on top of the world, with a great career and numerous possibilities. The applicant had a wife, a new baby girl, and the opportunity to live in one of the most beautiful states in the U.S. all at the age of 21. The applicant had been in the new unit for approximately a year when the applicant was on orders for Germany. The applicant informed the First Sergeant who then told the applicant the order were going to be cancelled because the unit was deploying. The applicant went into a frantic mode as a new father who feared leaving the daughter. On 10 December 2010, after believing the applicant had no other option, the applicant stopped reporting to work. The applicant's unit eventually considered the applicant AWOL. The applicant remained in Colorado trying to figure out what to do, but after 30 days, returned to work. The applicant's decision to return was mainly because the applicant did not want to be considered a deserter. The applicant's unit gave the applicant the opportunity of court-martial or a straight discharge. The applicant chose the discharge because the applicant could not leave the daughter. The applicant states it has been six years since discharge and during that time, has worked as a contractor inspecting pipelines, working on cell phone towers, and now working construction for a company in Arizona. The applicant is in the process of applying for the police department to become a police officer because the applicant has a drive to help people. The applicant has never been in legal trouble other than the events which led to discharge. The most the applicant ever received was a speeding ticket in 2008. The applicant was scared, confused, and frantic and made some very poor decisions which ultimately ended a great thing in life. The applicant would like to have the opportunity to serve the country again in any capacity as deemed necessary. Since discharge, the applicant has grown and gained experience in the work field and understands, fully accepts, and most of all regrets the mistakes in 2010. Changing the reentry code would mean that the applicant could prove oneself to the country and family. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 6 March 2020, 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 (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 1 March 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 9 February 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He had proven he had no motivation to be in the Army. He had been counseled numerous times for showing up late for formation, and on two occasions had gone AWOL from his unit. On one of those occasions, he was actually dropped from rolls. He had been disrespectful in nature, and possess no values that the Army would benefit from. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 10 February 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 22 February 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 26 August 2009 / NIF b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 102 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 12N10, Horizontal Construction Specialist / 3 years, 5 months, 7 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 22 August 2007 - 25 August 2009 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (8 June 2008 - 20 August 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-2CS, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Six Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 20 July 2010; From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 21 July 2010; From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 21 July 2010; From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 10 December 2010; From "AWOL" to "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," effective 9 January 2011; From "DFR" to "PDY," effective 10 January 2011; CG Article 15, dated 20 August 2010, for being AWOL (between 20 and 21 July 2010);and, for going from his appointed place of duty without authority (16 July 2010). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; and, extra duty for 14 days. Charge Sheet, dated 10 January 2011, reflects the applicant was charged with two specifications of violation of the UCMJ, Article 85, for without authority absent himself from his unit in desertion (9 December 2010). Several Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 33 days AWOL, 20 July 2010 - 21 July 2010 / Surrendered to Military Authorities AWOL, 10 December 2010 - 10 January 2011 / Surrendered to Military Authorities j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 21 January 2011, 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. The applicant was diagnosed with: Occupational Problem. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; DD Form 214. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states he has grown and gained experience in the work field and has worked as a contractor inspecting pipelines, working on cell phone towers, and now working construction for a company in Arizona. The applicant is in the process of applying for the police department to become a police officer. 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 14-12c states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. National Defense Authorization Act 2017 provided specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) in connection with combat or sexual assault or sexual harassment as a basis for discharge review. Further, it provided that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; as a basis for the discharge. In August 2017, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provided further clarifying guidance to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable, a narrative reason change a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. 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 the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed. However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is "JKQ"." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. 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 applicant contends that he was having family issues that affected his behavior and ultimately caused him to be discharged. However, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends that he had good service which included a combat tour. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended for his accomplishments. 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 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 6 March 2020, 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 AR20180000707 4