1. Applicant's Name: Mr. Gregory P. Michaud a. Application Date: 12 March 2018 b. Date Received: 12 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, an upgrade would enable the applicant to go to school. After discharge, the applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard. The applicant received an honorable discharge at the rank of Staff Sergeant. The applicant was young and stupid at the time of discharge from active duty. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 1 May 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 (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 22 September 2004 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 3 August 2004 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 3 April 2004, without authority, he absented himself from his unit, and remained absent in desertion until he was apprehended on 17 May 2004. On 18 February 2004, without authority, he absented himself from his unit and remained absent until 24 February 2004. On 26 February 2004, he disobeyed a commissioned officer. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 10 August 2004 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 31 August 2004 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 31 July 2002 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 95 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 11B10, Infantryman / 3 years, 9 months, 14 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR (9 November 2000 to 26 May 2002) / HD (per USAR discharge Orders 02-224-0007-07, dated 12 August 2002) AD (27 May 2002 to 30 July 2002) / NIF (per DD Form 214 e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM; GWOTSM; KDSM; ASR; OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 11 March 2004, for being AWOL on 18 February 2004, and remained absent until 24 February 2004, for a period of seven days, and disobeying his superior commissioned officer on 26 February 2004. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $664 pay per month for two months (suspended), and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. Negative counseling statements for being AWOL for a second time; being arrested by a local police; harassing a military spouse; advising him of moving out of the barracks within 10 days; failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time; being recommended for a FG Article 15; and disobeying a commissioned officer. FG Article 15, dated 13 July 2004, for being AWOL on 3 April 2004, and remaining absent in desertion until he was apprehended on 17 May 2004, for a period of 45 days. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $597 pay per month for two months, and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 10 June 2004, indicates the applicant was cleared for any administrative or judicial actions deemed appropriate by his command. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None recorded on DD Form 214. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 12 March 2018; VA letter, dated 22 February 2018; Honorable Discharge certificate, dated 19 October 2014; and DD Form 214. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, in effect, that after his discharge, he enlisted in the Army National Guard and received an honorable discharge at the rank of Staff Sergeant, and he was employed as technician with the US Government. 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 14-12c, 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. 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 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 serious incidents 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. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow him educational benefits to return to school, 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 that he was young and stupid at the time of the discharge. However, 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. In consideration of the applicant's post-service accomplishments, the Board can find that his accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. 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 1 May 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 AR20180004867 1