1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 27 December 2018 b. Date Received: 31 December 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, that the administrative separation occurred after the initial ETS date while on stop loss; the compassionate re-assignment was not carried out; and the applicant has exemplary post separation conduct. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 1 May 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 23 January 2004 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 18 December 2003 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for on diverse occasions, he disobeyed a noncommissioned officer, he disobeyed his superior commissioned officer, broke restriction, was disorderly, and he was not at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: Document in file is undated. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 12 January 2004 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 4 January 2001 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 126 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 13B10, Cannon Crewmember / 3 years, 20 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 1 October 2002, for violating a lawful general regulation, to wit: USAREUR Regulation 190-1, dated 17 April 2002, by wrongfully allowing a non USAREUR licensed person to operate his POV. This is in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $257.00 pay (suspended) and extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Summary Court-Martial, dated 22 October 2003, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 19 November. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $575.00 pay per month for one month and confinement for 21 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 19 November 2003, which indicates the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings and was mentally responsible. He was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriated by his command. The separation file contains a prior separation packet from Bravo Battery, 1st Battalion, 7th Field Artillery, which initiated separation action against the applicant on 25 June 2002. On 27 June 2002, this action was disapproved and the applicant was retained on active duty and the applicant was given a rehabilitative transfer to Charlie Battery. FG Article 15, dated 17 December 2001, disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer to not drink alcohol, failed to obey by drinking alcohol on or about 18 October 2001 and was disorderly , which conduct was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces on 18 October 2001. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $521.00 per month for two months and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. FG Article 15, dated 8 February 2002, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 18 December 2001, disobeying a lawful order from SFC U.G., a noncommissioned officer to bet his name tag sewn on to his gortex on 20 December 2001, wrongfully overindulged in intoxicating liquor or drugs resulting in be incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties on 20 December 2001, having been restricted to the limits of the billets, chapel, and his place of duty, broke his restriction on 19 December 2001. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $522.00 per month for two months and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and duty performance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; history of employment since his separation; and credit score reports. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends that since his discharge he has worked hard to utilize the values and work ethic instilled in him during his time in the Army to create a good life. He has worked for the same company 12 and a half years, has consistently worked his way to higher positions within the company and has always received positive annual review from his supervisors. His job requires close contact with customers in their homes and he consistently receives positive review on work performance from them. His job performance and skills are frequently required to fix problems created by other company employees. Customers will request him by name if they require additional or new installations. 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 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 seeks relief contending that his administrative separation occurred after initial ETS date while on stop loss; his compassionate re-assignment was not carried out; and he has exemplary post separation conduct. The applicant contentions were noted; his post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application and the applicant is to be commended on his accomplishments. However, the evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling; by the imposition of non-judicial punishment; and was given a rehabilitative transfer to another Battery. The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts which resulting in separation action being initiated against him. 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 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 1 May 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 AR20190001426 1