1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 24 May 2018 b. Date Received: 29 May 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his military service history, current conduct at time of discharge, and evaluations were not considered during discharge. The Commander's Report, reflects he had been given multiple opportunities to improve his behavior, but had shown he had no desire to continue military service and adhere to the guidelines and standards, which is a false statement. The applicant states he clearly outlined the steps he had taken to address his misconduct in a memorandum, wherein he requested an honorable discharge. The applicant states the NCOs supervising his extra duty, provided their opinion and judgment of the work he completed, his level of professionalism, and the applicant's drive to stay in the Army and adhere to guidelines and exceed standards. The applicant provides evidence with his application, which is a reflection of his service and dedication to the Army. He exceeded standards in every training course and earned awards. His immediate supervisor attested to the applicant's discipline, desire to adhere to guidelines, and strong drive to exceed standards. Since his discharge, he has been ashamed and had not sought an upgrade because of his shame, despite the recommendation from VSOs, VA employees and retired and active service associates. He has acquired a BACC in accounting with a 4.0 GP A. He has a family of his own, and has raised his sister in law from the age of 10. He has worked with the VA Claims intake site and closely with veteran service organizations. The applicant states his dedication to exceeding standards, adhering to guidelines, and his compassion and dedication to active service members, other veterans, and the military has never changed and he still loves the Army. The applicant believes his discharge was unmerited and not all evidence was considered. He currently works for the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office Kentucky as a Legal Instruments Examiner and plans to work in some capacity with the VA for the rest of life, but he would like to join the Army Reserves. His hope is the Board will consider the submitted records and evidence, as well as his post-service accomplishments and his continued drive to serve. In a telephonic personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 2 November 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: 3 May 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 6 April 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 19 January 2010, he received a CG Article 15, for failing to provide financial support to his spouse. On March 2010, he received a Summarized Article 15, for making a false official statement to 1SG S. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 13 April 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 16 April 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 28 May 2009 / 3 years, 9 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / GED / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 4 years, 5 months, 11 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 23 November 2005 - 27 May 2009 / HD IADT, 25 January 2006 - 23 June 2006 / UNC (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, NCOPDR, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 11 January 2010, for violating a lawful general regulation by wrongfully failing to provide financial support to his spouse (28 May 2009 to 18 December 2009); and, for wrongfully cohabit with B.D, a woman not his wife (13 September to 13 December 2009). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3 (suspended); forfeiture of $448 pay; and, extra duty for 14 days. Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 4 March 2010, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment imposed on 19 January 2010, was vacated because the applicant made a false official statement to 1SG S., "I was late because SGT H gave me permission to miss formation so I could be a CIF by 0700," (18 February 2010). CG Article 15, dated 4 March 2010, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (18 February 2010); and, for made a false official statement to 1SG S., "I was late because SGT H gave me permission to miss formation so I could be a CIF by 0700," (18 February 2010). The punishment consisted of extra duty for 14 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 12 March 2010, 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: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; case separation documents. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, he has acquired a BACC in accounting with a 4.0 GP A. He has a family of his own, and has raised his sister in law works for the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office. 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. 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 applicant contends his separation packet included false statements. 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. The character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. 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 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 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. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): Applicant provided oral argument and statements in support of the contentions provided in written submissions and in support of previously submitted documentary evidence. c. Counsel / Witness(es) / Observer(s): 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a telephonic personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 2 November 2020, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / 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 AR20180008277 4