1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 1 March 2018 b. Date Received: 21 May 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 effect, an upgrade will give a sense of relief. The applicant served the country honorably and now is pursuing trades and education. The applicant has been out of the military for four years and the hope is that an upgrade will allow use of the Post 9/11 GI Bill to go to school and become a welder. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review at the time in the service record, the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA), and Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV), notes indicate diagnoses of Other Specified Family Circumstances. The applicant is 50% service-connected for PTSD from the VA. In summary, the applicant has a BH diagnosis that is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 4 December 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post- service diagnosis of PTSD) and homelessness. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. (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: 29 April 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 5 March 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He missed movement of the 610th Engineer: support Company to National Training Center on 6 January 2014. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 10 March 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 26 March 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 January 2011 / 3 years, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 96 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 3 years, 3 months, 12 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (23 July 2011 - 19 July 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM, MUC, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 23 January 2013, 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. Military Police Report, dated 9 April 2013, reflects the applicant was apprehended on 30 March 2013. The Fife Police Department responded to a Domestic disturbance. Investigation revealed that K and her husband, the applicant, became involved in a verbal altercation which turned physical when farmer pushed K, causing K to fall to the ground. Upon the arrival of Police officer, the applicant was arrested and booked into the Fife city jail. There were no reported injuries. Civil charge: assault fourth degree (domestic violence). FG Article 15, dated 14 January 2014, for dereliction in the performance of duties by willfully failing to be present for the movement of his unit (6 January 2014). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3 (suspended); forfeiture of $959 pay per month for two months (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; two letters of support. 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. 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 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 would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. However, eligibility for veteran's 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 third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. However, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. 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 4 December 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD) and homelessness. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JKN / 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 AR20180008278 1