1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 11 September 2018 b. Date Received: 27 September 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, he was assigned to Fort Richardson and was one of few Infantrymen selected to be cross trained as a Forward Observer (13F). At the time, his unit was gearing up for an upcoming deployment. The applicant basically had two MOS's, and went through the pre- deployment training at Fort Irwin and fulfilled both duties as an Infantryman and a Forward Observer in simulated combat environments. The applicant returned to Fort Richardson from Fort Irwin and went home to visit his family on pre-deployment leave. While he was home, he had found out his wife had been unfaithful and they separated. In addition, the applicant's father was rushed to the hospital and diagnosed with kidney failure. The applicant spoke to the doctors to see if there was anything he could do and learned that his father needed a kidney transplant. After talking to his siblings and close family members, it was discovered the applicant was the only compatible blood type. The applicant volunteered to undergo The Living Donor Kidney Transplant testing as long as the Army would allow it. The applicant returned to his unit and spoke to his chain of command to see if donating his kidney was a viable option. They agreed to allow the applicant to proceed with the testing and sent the applicant home with no TDY orders while they worked on a compassionate reassignment. The applicant states everything was going smooth until my unit deployed. The rear detachment had no mention of the applicant's compassionate reassignment or the details of the applicant's situation. The applicant was ordered to return to Fort Richardson rear detachment 4 May 2009 to adjust some financial issues between the applicant and now separated wife. He was told he would continue testing through the Troop Medical Clinic. After asking the applicant's doctors if that was possible, they informed the applicant he would need to be local to the testing facilities due to the sheer amount of tests and unexpected side effects. The applicant informed his new chain of command of the situation and the promise of a compassionate reassignment from his unit. The rear detachment agreed to help him, but after about a month of his chain of command doing nothing and ignoring the applicant's request for a status of his compassionate reassignment, the applicant called his transplant doctors. On 23 June 2009, the applicant had his doctor fax documents confirming the applicant was undergoing testing for a living kidney transplant and needed to be in California from 1 July to 1 August 2009, to continue the now slowed testing process. Upon receiving these documents the applicant was placed on TDY orders to return to California from 1 July to 1 August 2009. While undergoing testing in California, the applicant received a TB test, which showed positive results. Because of the positive results, the doctors informed the applicant he would have to be on Anti Tuberculosis medication for six months prior to donating his kidney. The applicant returned to his unit on 1 August 2009, and informed them of the changes and once again asked about a compassionate reassignment. Again the unit ignored his requests and the applicant did not start taking the medication because he did not know if his unit would allow him to continue with the testing due to the long medication period and the unknown status of his compassionate reassignment. After waiting another month and seeing no progress with his compassionate reassignment or any information regarding his continued testing, the applicant once again contacted his transplant doctors for help. On 4 September 2009, the doctors faxed supporting documents, which explained the applicant's medication, the length of time he would need to be on it, and informing them he would have to be closely monitored due to the adverse side effects. The rear detachment once again ignored the applicant's request for a compassionate reassignment and the whole situation. On 25 September 2009, the applicant received orders for deployment and was ordered to ship out 5 October 2009. Upon receiving these orders, the applicant contacted his transplant doctors to see if the applicant would be able to continue the medication overseas. The applicant was informed he would need close attention due to the adverse side effects the medication can have on his liver. The applicant asked his chain of command if where he was going would have facilities that would be able to monitor him. The applicant was informed he would not have the medical facilities where he was going. The morning of his deployment the applicant decided to miss movement, hoping the extra time would allow him to reach someone who would appeal to his case or his reassignment problems. When the applicant returned to his unit, the applicant was recommended for an Article 15, and allegations were levied against the applicant for having unprescribed narcotics in his room and for being involved in a bar fight. The applicant states, he was young, naive and this was the first time he had been on his own. The applicant states, he made some mistakes, but had never been in trouble up until that point. The applicant was again placed on orders to deploy on 4 November 2009. The applicant sought help from mental health and the chaplain, who agreed what was going on was wrong, and that the applicant should not deploy. Afterwards, the applicant was called in front of the formation, where he was embarrassed and humiliated by his NCOIC for seeking help. On 2 November 2009, two days before his deployment, the applicant decided to go AWOL and went home to spend time with his father. The applicant returned to his unit where he faced UCMJ and was recommended for separation. Now everything is finally coming together and he has remarried an amazing woman, moved to Texas and has a great job. The applicant integrated himself into society again although he is still distant from his family. The applicant states he is an upstanding citizen and has not been in any trouble since the Army. The applicant decided to apply for an upgrade now, because he would like to use his post 9/11 GI Bill to attend college. The applicant believes furthering his education would help him further his career and would make him the first in his family to go to college. The applicant further details his contentions in an allied self-authored statement provided with the application. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 18 November 2020, 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 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 19 February 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 26 January 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He had missed movement to OEF twice and had received Article 15's on two different occasions. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 22 January 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 2 February 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 April 2008 / 3 years, 19 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / GED / 105 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 11B1P, Infantryman / 1 year, 10 months, 4 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM-2, GWOTSM-2, ASR-2 g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Personnel Action form, reflects the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Failure to Report," effective 5 October 2009; From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 2 November 2009; and, From "AWOL" to "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," effective 24 November 2009. FG Article 15, dated 23 October 2009, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (5 October 2009); and, through design miss movement (5 October 2009). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2; forfeiture of $699 pay; and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Military Police Report, dated 2 November 2009, reflects the applicant was apprehended for: AWOL-Failed to Go To Place of Duty (On Post). FG Article 15, dated 9 December 2009, for being AWOL (between 2 and 24 November 2009); and, for missing movement through neglect (4 November 2009). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $699 pay per month for two months; and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 23 December 2009, 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: 22 days (AWOL, 2 November 2009 - 23 November 2009) / Returned to Military Control j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 1610; self-authored statement; Dissolution of Marriage documents; Written Reporting Orders (memo); Living Donor Program information; Approval of living kidney donor letter; Living kidney donor evaluation letter; Center for Organ and Cell Transplantation documentation; Laboratory Service Request; Orders 268- 505; 3 MDG Emergency Services Discharge Instructions; Prehospital Care Report; Emergency Physician Record; case separation documents; three Certificates of Training; Airborne Course. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, he has remarried and moved to Texas where he has a great job. The applicant integrated himself into society and is an upstanding citizen, and has not been in any trouble since the Army. 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 12b, pattern of misconduct. 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 unit ignored his requests for a compassionate discharge, which affected his behavior. 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. Further, 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 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 applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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 18 November 2020, 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 / 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 AR20180010095 6