1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 5 December 2017 b. Date Received: 29 March 2018 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, was professionally driven with ambition and motivation. The applicant was an explosive, expert, and professional infantryman. However, a series of unfortunate events killed the applicant's morale and motivation, and found oneself not being resilient. The applicant lost sight of what it meant to serve as a Soldier. Since discharge, the applicant began exploring new pathways in life. An upgrade would allow the applicant to enter college. The current discharge is an obstacle to endeavoring into a new beginning of life and an honorable discharge is the master key to unlimited of doors. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 11 September 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: 6 September 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 17 July 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On divers occasions between 16 April 2017 and 10 May 2017, the applicant failed to report to his appointed place of duty. On 20 April 2017, the applicant failed to obey a lawful general order, to wit: Installation Policy Memorandum 5, Off Limits Locations, dated 27 October 2015, by wrongfully entering "The High Life." On 10 November 2016, the applicant was disrespectful in deportment toward SGT V.M.R., a superior noncommissioned officer, who was then in the execution of his office, by the applicant rolling his eyes, talking back, raising his voice, and sucking his teeth towards him. On 10 November 2016, the applicant, was disorderly, such conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline in the Armed Forces and was of a nature to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: Waived, 20 July 2017 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: In an undated memorandum / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 5 February 2016 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 88 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 4 years, 10 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA (27 August 2013 to 4 February 2016) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM; AGCM; NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Negative counseling statements for disrespecting an NCO; losing his military bearing; missing appointments; failing to report to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on numerous occasions; entering a prohibited establishment; being suspected of abusing drugs; not being recommended for a promotion; and being transferred for rehabilitative purpose. Summarized Article 15, for being disrespectful in deportment towards an NCO on 10 November 2016. The punishment consisted of 14 days of extra duty and restriction. CG Article 15, dated 6 June 2017, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on four separate occasions on 6 May 2017, 1 May 2017, 13 April 2017, and 16 April 2017. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $496 (suspended), and 14 days of extra duty and restriction. Report of Medical Status Evaluation, dated 14 June 2017, provided no behavioral health diagnosis. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application and memorandum, dated 20 July 2017. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided 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. 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 document 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. 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. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incidents of misconduct, the Board can find that his complete period of service was or was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. 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. The applicant contends an upgrade would serve as master key to unlimited of doors, perhaps an indication for employment opportunities. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. The third party statement provided with the application spoke in support of the applicant. However, the person providing the statement was not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. 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. 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 11 September 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 AR20180004194 1