1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 5 September 2018 b. Date Received: 21 November 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, desires to receive VA benefits. At the time of discharge, the applicant had poor leadership and personal issues interfered as well. The applicant was a model Soldier and deserved such. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 20 March 2020, and by a 5-0, 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, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 3 February 2010 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 11 December 2009 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for her discharge; she was arrested for driving with a suspended driver's license (20 February 2009); she was convicted for failure to pay for the citations given for excessive speed, suspended registration, no insurance and driving while her license was suspended (8 May 2009); shed was arrested for driving with a suspended license (4 November 2009); and she failed to obey orders to not drive on several occasions. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 22 December 2009 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 18 January 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 March 2008 / 5 years / block 12a on the applicant's DD Form 214, dated entered active duty this period is incorrect, should read as annotated in the Case Report and Directive. See current enlistment contract. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 years / HS Graduate / 81 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist / 4 years, 05 months, 15 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 18 August 2005 to 31 August 2005 IADT, 1 September 20005 to 28 February 2006 / HD USAR, 1 March 2006 to 21 February 2007 / HD RA, 22 February 2007 to 29 February 2008 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Summarized Article 15, dated 27 January 2009, for having received a lawful order from SSG W.J., a noncommissioned officer, to not drive her vehicle due to a suspended license, an order which it was her duty to obey, did willfully disobey the same (12 December 2008); with intent to deceive, make to SPC C.L., an official statement, that you paid a traffic ticket online, which statement was totally false and was then known by her to be so false (2 December 2008); and having knowledge of a lawful order issued by the State of Georgia, an order which it was her duty to obey, did fail to obey the same by wrongfully driving (12 December 2008) extra duty for 14 days. Military Police Report, dated 20 February 2009, relates the applicant was under investigation for excessive speed, driving on a suspended registration, no insurance and driving while license suspended, on post. CG Article 15 dated, 4 May 2009, for fail to obey a lawful general order, by wrongfully driving with a suspended license (20 February 2009); reduction to PFC / E-3 and forfeiture of $448 pay (suspended). Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 18 November 2009, revealed the applicant did not present to be suicidal or homicidal at the time. No mental health problems were seen which required disposition through medical channels at the time. She was returned to full duty, with no limitations. There was no indication of PTSD or TBI at this time. She was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, and adhere to the right. She had the mental capacity to understand and participate in administrative or legal proceedings. She was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed necessary by Command. The applicant received numerous negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct; and monthly counseling. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages) 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 the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant's record of service and the issues submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of her 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. By the documented pattern of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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 she should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant seeks relief contending, she desires to receive VA benefits. 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 further contends, at the time of discharge, she had poor leadership and her personal issues interfered as well. 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 applicant also contends, she was model Soldier and deserved such. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of her service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. 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 20 March 2020, and by a 5-0, 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 AR20180016318 1