1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 8 July 2018 b. Date Received: 23 July 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of an under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge is inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident, which occurred after a divorce. The spouse had given birth to another Soldier's child, drained the applicant's bank account and left the state with their children. The applicant served two deployments and reenlisted once in country. The incident which led to discharge, was the only incident in seven and half years of service. An upgrade will allow the applicant to qualify for medical, housing and employment help benefits. Currently, the applicant is incarcerated for substance abuse problems and will be homeless upon release, where the applicant will need substance and housing help. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 8 January 2020, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, a prior period of honorable service, homelessness, and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to general under honorable conditions. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. (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 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 29 August 2008 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 25 July 2008 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Between on or about 13 November 2007 and or about 18 January 2008, he stole, United States currency of some value, the property of PFC J. W. Between on or about 1 October 2007 and on or about 4 October 2007, he failed to pay his rent, and on 4 October 2007, he disrespected 1SG J. P., his superior noncommissioned officer by lying to him about his finances and staying in a hotel. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 26 July 2008 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 26 July 2008, the applicant unconditionally waived consideration of his case before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 22 August 2008 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 9 February 2005 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 95 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 21B10, Combat Engineer / 7 years, 4 months, 24 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 15 March 2001 - 28 April 2003 / HD IADT, 30 October 2001 - 5 March 2002 / HD (Concurrent Service) RA, 29 April 2003 - 8 February 2005 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii, SWA / Afghanistan (16 April 2004 - 12 April 2005); Iraq (8 December 2005 - 3 December 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2; AGCM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, OSR-3, CAB, ICM-2BS, ACM-CS g. Performance Ratings: NIF h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 25 October 2007, for being indebted to P.D., to the sum of $1,875, for rent, which he dishonorably failed to pay (1 to 4 October 2007); and, for being disrespectful in deportment toward 1SG J. P., by lying to him about his finances and staying in a hotel (4 October 2007). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4; forfeiture of $650 pay per month for two months (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 30 days. CID Report of Investigation - Initial, dated 25 January 2008, reflects a preliminary investigation revealed the applicant stayed in PFC W's room while on extra duty. While he was alone inside PFC W's room, the applicant obtained PFC W's bank account information from a debit card found inside PFC W's wallet. The applicant later used the stolen bank account information to make a series of unlawful purchases and online bill payments. The applicant was interviewed and confessed to using PFC W's debit card to make unauthorized transactions. Total loss to PFC W's was estimated at $1,573.12. Mental Status Evaluation, dated 11 February 2008, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible with clear a thinking process and could distinguish from right and wrong. Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial, dated 27 June 2008, reflects the applicant was charged with three specifications of violation of Article 121: Between on or about 13 November 2007 and on or about 30 November 2007, wrongfully appropriate lawful US currency, of some value, the property of PFC W. Between on or about 1 December 2007 and on or about 31 December 2007, wrongfully appropriate lawful US currency, of some value, the property of PFC W. Between on or about 1 January 2008 and on or about 18 January 2008, wrongfully appropriate lawful US currency, of some value, the property of PFC W. The applicant was found guilty of all specifications consistent with his plea. The sentenced adjudged: Forfeiture $898 pay; reduction to E-1 and confinement for 30 days. Offer to Plead Guilty, dated 26 July 2008, reflects the applicant offered to plead guilty to the three specifications of wrongful appropriation in a Summary Court-Martial; accept an administrative discharge; and, waive his right to an administrative separation board and accept an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization of service. The convening authority accepted the applicant's plea and agreed not to refer the applicant's case to a Special Court-Martial. Several Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 21 days (Confined by Military Authorities, 30 June 2008 - 20 July 2008) / Released from Confinement j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). 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 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 that he was having family issues that affected his behavior and ultimately caused him to be discharged. However, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends that he had good service which included two combat tours. 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 veterans benefits. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include medical, housing and employment benefits, 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 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 8 January 2020, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, a prior period of honorable service, homelessness, and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to general under honorable conditions. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: General Under Honorable Conditions 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 AR20180009897 1