1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 12 December 2017 b. Date Received: 14 February 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, entered the Army immediately following high school as a 12D, Army Scuba Diver. Upon completing Basic Training, he began Phase One of Scuba Diver training with 32 other 12D enlistees. The applicant was one of three that completed Phase One they were allowed to take leave for the Christmas holidays. While on leave in Hawaii, he was attacked by locals while at a social gathering. The applicant fought back, but came out on the losing end of the ordeal and his wallet was stolen, Military ID and clothes were stolen and his face was beat up very badly. The police took to him to the hospital where he was treated and released and was not charged by any civil or military authority. Upon arriving back to Fort Leonard Wood, his AIT platoon sergeants assumed that the applicant was a troublemaker, since he had been in a fight. The applicant states there were no alcohol or drugs involved in his incident, however the command launched an investigation that lasted several months. The applicant was told that he could wait out the investigation or could choose a new MOS and continue training. The applicant chose to continue training and was assigned a new MOS of 92F. The applicant completed AIT and was assigned to Fort Campbell, where he was rushed into Air Assault School as he was in top physical condition. The applicant graduated Air Assault School and found his niche in the unit. Quickly learning the ropes, the platoon leadership leaned on him to take the demanding duties of working the refuel point during the night shift. In preparation for a possible upcoming deployment, his unit completed a rotation at the Joint Readiness Training Center at Fort Polk (JRTC), where the applicant was recognized as the "hero of the battle" from one of the Observer Controllers. Upon their return from JRTC, the applicant was told to prepare for the "Soldier of the Month" board and that he would likely be promoted to Specialist shortly after hitting his two-year time in service mark. The applicant states, his is when he made a huge tactical error and had a lapse in judgement where he went to party in the barracks and everyone was drinking alcohol. The applicant had a few drinks throughout the night and became carried away with a truth or dare game, which ultimately led to him running down the hall naked right as the MPs were walking down the hall. One of the guys living in the room where the party was at said that he did not permit the party to take place in his room, and that it was all his roommate's party. Ultimately, his indiscretion led to the applicant being charged with underage drinking, entering someone's room unlawfully and indecency. Although charged, he was never tried or convicted and he was not allowed due process. The applicant believes the command took the easy and fast way out, rather than allowing him an opportunity through remedial training and non-judicial punishment, which was very inequitable. The one night ruined his dreams of following in his father's, uncle's and his aunt's footsteps. The applicant accepted responsibility for his actions and would have gladly taken a multitude of non-judicial punishment. He believes he was not afforded the opportunity to fulfill his commitment due a "zero tolerance" mentality within the command. The applicant agree his behavior was unacceptable, but does not believe he was dealt a fair hand. The applicant has witnessed other Soldiers within his organization make far greater errors and where dealt with by administering a Company or Field Grade Article 15. The applicant's punishment was simply being chaptered out of the Army, which he believes is inequitable. The applicant was not reduced in rank, assigned any extra duty, no forfeiture of pay and no remedial training. The applicant believes his discharge was inequitable as it was based on one isolated incident. An upgrade of his discharge will allow him the ability to serve the nation again in some capacity in the future and for him to carry his head high as a veteran. The applicant enlisted during a time of war, willing to give his life in for his nation and requests that the Board not let one night's indiscretion prevent him from future opportunities for the rest of his life. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 25 September 2020, and by a 4-1 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: 28 September 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 10 August 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 28 April 2017, he violated Policy Letter 17, by drinking an alcoholic beverage under 21 years of age; On or about 28 April 2017 and on or about 14 May 2017, he exposed himself indecently; and, On or about 14 May 2017, he unlawfully entered multiple Soldiers' barracks rooms and wrongfully took their belongings. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 17 August 2017, the applicant waived his rights to consult with a JAG officer. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: undated / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 17 August 2015 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 121 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92F10, 2B Petroleum Supply Specialist / 2 years, 1 month, 12 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Receipt for Pre-Trial/Post-Trial Prisoner or Detained Person, dated 29 April 2017, reflects the applicant was charged with: Disorderly conduct; Underage drinking; Reproduction or Facsimile license. Receipt for Pre-Trial/Post-Trial Prisoner or Detained Person, dated 5 May 2017, reflects the applicant was charged with: Indecent exposure; Larceny; Unlawful entry; Resisting Apprehension. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 28 June 2017, 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: Online application. 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 14-12c 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). 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a narrative reason 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 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. The applicant contends the command took the easy and fast way out, rather than allowing him an opportunity through remedial training and non-judicial punishment, which was very inequitable. The applicant contends other Soldiers within his organization made far greater errors and where dealt with by administering a Company or Field Grade Article 15. However, the 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. Further, the method in which another Soldier's case was handled is not relevant to the applicant's case. Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case. The applicant contends that he had good service. 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 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 25 September 2020, and by a 4-1 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 AR20180001916 1