1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 9 December 2018 b. Date Received: December 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, the applicant made a youthful mistake in a high stress environment. The mistake is the only blemish on an otherwise stellar enlistment. The demotion that accompanied the disciplinary action barred the applicant from reenlisting and continuing what would have been an incredible and fulfilling career. The discharge should reflect three years of distinguished service, rather than focus moments of bad judgment and inexperience. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 24 April 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, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 19 March 2014 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 December 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; he failed to follow a direct order from a commissioned officer (22 September 2013); he failed to report for 0900 CQ duty (16 January 2012); he negligently damaged a M-ATV by rolling it on its side (22 September 2013); and he failed to obey a direct order from a noncommissioned officer (29 June 2012. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 6 February 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant's election of rights indicate he conditionally waived his right to appear before an (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 21 February 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 March 2011 / 3 years, 25 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 years / HS Graduate / 98 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 91B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic / 3 years d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan, 15 March 2013 to 6 December 2013 f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, ACM-CS, GWOTSM, ASR, NATO MDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 14 September 2012, for without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to your appointed place of duty x2 (7 August 2012 and 4 June 2012); having knowledge of a lawful order issued by CPT D.K.R., an order which it was his duty to obey, did fail to obey the same by wrongfully traveling to Jackson County, NJ without obtaining a pass (21 July 2012); and having knowledge of a lawful order i issued by CSM K.E.P., an order which it was his duty to obey, did fail to obey the same by wrongfully maintaining a switch blade knife in his barracks room (29 June 2012); reduction to PV2 / E-2 (suspended) and extra duty for 14 days (suspended). FG Article 15, dated 15 November 2013, for having received a lawful command from 2LT A.M., his superior commissioned officer, to not drive the M-ATV, or words to that effect, did at or near FOB Shank, Afghanistan, willfully disobey the same (22 September 2013); without proper authority negligently damage by rolling on to its side, a M-ATV, of a value of about $575,000, military property of the United States, the amount of said damage being in the sum of about $763 (22 September 2013); reduction to PVT / E-1, forfeiture of one month pay (suspended), extra duty for 15 days and an oral reprimand. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 24 January 2014, relates the applicant screened negative for PTSD and mTBI. He was cleared and met medical retention standards per AR 40-501. The applicant received numerous negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct; and a monthly counseling. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL for 12 days, 22 July 2007 to 3 August 2012; 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 his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms 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. By the documented pattern of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his 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, he made a youthful mistake in a high stress environment. The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief from stress through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Community Counseling Center and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. The applicant further contends, his mistake is the only blemish on an otherwise stellar enlistment. The service record indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant's numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant also contends, his demotion that accompanied the disciplinary action barred him from reenlisting and continuing what would have been an incredible and fulfilling career. 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 additionally contends, his discharge should reflect three years of distinguished service, rather than focus moments of bad judgment and inexperience. 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 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 24 April 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 / 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 AR20190000531 1