1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 2 January 2019 b. Date Received: 16 January 2019 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, he is ready to use his GI Bill. He was told he could receive a discharge upgrade after six months. He has not been in any trouble since his discharge and feels he deserves this upgrade to continue bettering himself. 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 diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct; Alcohol Abuse; Nicotine Dependence. The applicant is 30% service-connected from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Chronic Adjustment Disorder. 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 11 September 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, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 6 March 2018 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 9 February 2018 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; he failed to obey a lawful general order by bullying PV2 T.E., between (1 October 2016 and 1 February 2017); he made a false official statement to 1LT D.G., stating "I did not brag about having sex with PV2 E." and "I did not brag about the video being about PV2 E." (31 March 2017); and he failed to report to his appointed place of duty x3 (11 August 2017, 9 November 2017 and 10 November 2017). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 13 February 2018, applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 15 February 2018 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 11 January 2016 / 3 years, 25 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 years / HS Graduate / 84 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 91B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic / 2 years, 1 month, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 19 July 2017, revealed the applicant had no history of BH treatment and declined any further services from 101 CAB BH at this time. He was screened for PTSD and mTBI in accordance with OTSG/MEDCOM policy memo 10-040 (findings were negative for both PTSD and mTBI). His thoughts were logical, linear and goal oriented. He exhibited no delusions, paranoia or other psychotic symptoms. He met medical retention requirements in accordance with AR 40-501; therefore, he had no medical /behavioral health conditions that required an MEB and was able to fully participate in the administrative separation process. Medical diagnoses were documented in AHLTA in accordance with AR 40-66. FG Article 15 dated, 30 August 2017, for failing to obey a lawful general regulation, by bullying PV2 T.E., and spreading rumors about her in the work environment between (1 October 2016 and 1 February 2017); and with intent to deceive, make to 1LT D.G., an official statement, "I did not... brag about having sex with .... PV2 E." and "I did not brag about the video being about PV2 E." or words to that effect, which statement was totally false, and was then known by him to be so false (31 March 2017); reduced to PVT / E-1, forfeiture of $799 pay (suspended), extra duty and restriction for 14 days. The applicant received several negative counseling statements 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 (two pages); and a DD Form 214. 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 14-12c 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 the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) 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. 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 he should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant seeks relief contending, he is ready to use his GI Bill. 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, he was told he could receive a discharge upgrade after six months. The US Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 293 requesting a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines the characterization of service or the reasons for discharge, or both, were improper or inequitable. The applicant also contends, he has not been in any trouble since his discharge and feels he deserves this upgrade to continue bettering himself. The applicant is to be commended for his effort. However, this contention is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued. 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 11 September 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 AR20190002385 1