1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 18 August 2018 b. Date Received: 4 September 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, served in the Army and went to war in Afghanistan. The applicant served the country not because of being forced, but because the applicant wanted to make a difference after watching two planes crash into the twin towers, while the applicant was in class. The only way the applicant could was to go help the father be a part of a great brotherhood and family in the Army. The applicant had plenty of opportunities to change while the Army to do greater things for the country, but was a kid and took it for granted. The applicant humbly apologizes for the actions and is now 33 with drive and passion. The applicant has grown and matured with the knowledge, integrity, courage and honor to change the world one opportunity at a time. The applicant needs the support from the family that the applicant supported when they called the applicant's name to go fight for the country. An upgrade will let the applicant pursue an education and give the applicant a second chance to be part of the veteran family at Full Sail University and be a part of something great for oneself and future vets. 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 no BH diagnoses while on active duty. The applicant does not have any VA records available for review. In summary, the applicant does not have 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 15 January 2020, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, blocks 25, 26, and 28, contain erroneous entries. The Board directed the following administrative corrections and reissue of the applicant's DD Form 214, as approved by the separation authority: a. block 25, separation authority changed to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, b. block 26, separation code changed to JKN, c. block 28, narrative reason for separation changed to Misconduct (Minor Infractions). (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: 16 July 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 7 June 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He failed to report to his appointed place of duty 15 times. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 14 June 2007, the applicant waived his rights to consult with a JAG officer. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 3 July 2007 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 30 March 2004 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 110 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 42A10, Human Resources Specialist / 3 years, 3 months, 17 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Afghanistan (12 February 2005 - 26 February 2006) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, NDSM, ACM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 6 December 2006, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on six separate occasions (between 3 November 2006 and 13 October 2006). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2 (suspended); forfeiture of $333 pay; extra duty and restriction for 14 days; and, oral reprimand. Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 15 March 2007, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment imposed on 6 December 2006, was vacated because the applicant failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (8 January 2007). CG Article 15, dated 23 March 2007, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on four separate occasions (between 18 January and 9 March 2007). The punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction for 14 days; and, oral reprimand. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 12 April 2007, 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. CG Article 15, dated 4 May 2007, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on five separate occasions (between 9 March and 1 May 2007). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $303 pay; and, extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None 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 14-12b 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. 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 was very young and immature at the time. The record confirms the applicant's youth at the time of enlistment and an apparent lack of maturity. The record also shows the applicant's discrediting entries were incidents of a minor nature. While the applicant's misconduct and poor duty performance were a clear departure from acceptable Army standards, it appears the offenses were partially mitigated by youth and immaturity. 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 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 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 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 15 January 2020, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, blocks 25, 26, and 28, contain erroneous entries. The Board directed the following administrative corrections and reissue of the applicant's DD Form 214, as approved by the separation authority: a. block 25, separation authority changed to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, b. block 26, separation code changed to JKN, c. block 28, narrative reason for separation changed to Misconduct (Minor Infractions). 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: No Change 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 AR20180013346 1