1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 2 January 2019 b. Date Received: 25 February 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that the applicant disagrees with discharge because of the way the applicant was treated while on active duty by pushing the applicant out without fixing medical injuries prior to separation. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 3 June 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 14-12c / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 28 March 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 1 February 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for underage drinking of alcohol on 29 April 2016; Disobeying a lawful order by Lieutenant Colonel C.D.D., by wrongfully having PV2 F. stay in his barracks room on 15 May 2016; and Failing to be at his appointed place of duty on 18 November 2016; (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 7 February 2017 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 16 February 2017 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 26 October 2015 / 3 years, 18 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 91 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 12B10, Combat Engineer / 1 year, 5 months, 3 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Single Soldier Quarters Living Standards Policy Memorandum, dated 15 May 2015, reference alcohol and visitation and quiet time. CG Article 15, dated 17 May 2016, for underage drinking. The punishment consisted of 14 days extra duty. FG Article 15, dated 29 September 2016, for disobeying a lawful order. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $783.00 pay per month for two months (suspended), and Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 13 December 2016, indicates the applicant could understand participate in administrative proceedings and appreciated the difference between right and wrong. Several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and duty performance (i.e., disobeying a lawful order, lying to a noncommissioned officer, not being at his place of duty, failing to shave, wearing of a dirty uniform, violation of room standards and barracks policy, and driving the wrong-way on a one-way street and perceived of having consumed alcohol with-in an hour with a BAC of .04.) i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and statements of support. 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. 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 he disagrees with his discharge because of the way he was treated while on active duty by pushing him out without fixing his medical injuries prior to separation. However, the service record does not support the applicant's contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Further, the record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service with either medical limitation or medication. Also, it should be noted that the applicant's 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 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 3 June 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 AR20190002549 1