1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 11 June 2018 b. Date Received: 10 July 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 allow the applicant to be eligible for the Post 9/11 GI Bill. The policy was changed soon after discharge, which made the applicant ineligible. The applicant is trying to further an education to make a better life for the family. The applicant states at the time of discharge, it was explained that the applicant was eligible for the same benefits as an honorable discharge based on the policy. The applicant accepted and assigned the paperwork because of what the applicant was told, but after discharge the policy changed requiring an honorable discharge to receive Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits. During that time, the applicant was already attending a university waiting on approval of the benefits. The applicant was forced to drop out of school because of not being able to afford the university without the GI Bill. The applicant's hope is that an upgrade will allow use of the Post 9/11 GI Bill. The applicant would like to enlist back into the university to continue a degree in computer science, with the hope of one day working to help stop cyber-attacks on the country. The applicant served the country proudly as an infantryman in Iraq and would like to continue serving the country in other ways as a civilian. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 18 December 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 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 29 June 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 24 May 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: His misconduct from 7 April 2009 to 7 November 2009, resulting in conviction by Special Court Martial. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 27 May 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 16 June 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 30 December 2008 / 3 years, 16 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 11B10, Infantryman / 1 year, 2 months, 20 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWTOSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Confined by Military Authorities (CMA)" effective 10 February 2010; From "CMA" to "PDY," effective 19 May 2010. Special Court-Martial Order Number 1, dated 9 April 2010, reflects the applicant was charged with: Original Charge. Article 112(a). Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Specification 1: Did, at or near JSS Nasir Wa Salam, Iraq, between on or about 15 October 2009 and 7 November 2009, wrongfully use Diazepam, a schedule IV controlled substance, while receiving special pay under 37 U.S.C. 310. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Specification 2: Did, at or near JSS Nasir Wa Salam, Iraq, on or about 7 November 2009, wrongfully possess about 400 Diazepam tablets, a schedule IV controlled substance, while receiving special pay under 37 U.S.C. 310. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Specification 3: Did, at or near JSS Nasir Wa Salam, Iraq, on or about 22 October 2009, wrongfully distribute between about 5 and 15 tablets of Diazepam a schedule IV controlled substance, while receiving special pay under 37 U.S.C. 310. Plead: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Specification 4: Did, at or near JSS Nasir Wa Salam, Iraq, on or about 5 November 2009, wrongfully distribute between about 5 and 15 tablets of Diazepam, a schedule IV controlled substance, while receiving special pay under 37 U.S.C. 310. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Additional Charge. Article 112(a). Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. The Specification: Did, at or near Mobile, Alabama, between on or about 7 April 2009 and 7 May 2009, wrongfully use marijuana. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty. The sentence was adjudged on 10 February 2010. To be reduced to the grade of E-1, to forfeit $1,000.00 pay per month for eight (8) months, and to be confined for eight (8) months. Only so much of the sentence as provides for reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $1,000.00 pay per month for eight (8) months, and confinement for four (4) months, was approved and will be executed. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 98 days (CMA, 10 February 2010 - 19 May 2010) / Released from CMA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states he is trying to pursue his degree. 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 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 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 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 December 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 AR20180012411 1