1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 9 January 2019 b. Date Received: 11 January 2019 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 pertinent part and in effect, while serving honorably for most of the term of service, the applicant ran into some problems with leadership. The applicant could not seem to get anything right. The applicant served three years with no issues until the last year of enlistment, everything fell apart. The applicant made some mistakes and is paying for it now; however, the applicant is not the type of person reflected on the file. The applicant was a good Soldier. An upgrade would provide some education and changes to life to become a better person. 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 anxiety and depressed mood. The applicant's VA records contain no BH diagnoses. 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 6 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 17 April 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF, but according to the Commander's Report, dated 15 February 2018 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 28 February 2017, the applicant received a CG Article 15 and was found guilty of all specifications. He received a punishment of14 days of extra duty and restriction, and a forfeiture of seven days' pay for one month, which was suspended. The applicant failed to report to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on multiple occasions. The applicant posted inappropriate pictures on a noncommissioned officer's desk. The applicant has been disrespectful on multiple occasions and failed to follow direct orders. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 23 February 2018 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 14 April 2015 / 4 years, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 92 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 42A10, Human Resources Specialist / 3 years, 4 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 16 March 2017, for disobeying an NCO on two separate occasions on18 January 2017 and 17 November 2016, being derelict in the performance of his duties on two separate occasions between 26 October 2015 and 18 January 2018, making false official statements on two separate occasions on 1 February 2017 and 2 January 2017, and negligently discharging a rifle on 11 January 2017. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $440 (suspended), and 14 days of extra duty and restriction. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 9 January 2019. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided 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. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, pattern of misconduct. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKA" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant's available record of service and the issues submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms that 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 pattern of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and marred the quality of his service that ultimately caused his discharge from the Army. 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 contends he was serving honorably for most of his term of service, until he ran into some problems with his leadership. However, the evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishment. The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts. The commander reported that despite attempts to rehabilitate or develop the applicant as a satisfactory Soldier, formally counseling the Soldier concerning deficiencies and affording him ample opportunities to overcome his deficiencies, it was determined that further time and effort was unlikely to succeed. The applicant contends that an upgrade would provide him educational benefits to obtain some education. However, eligibility for veterans' 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 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 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 6 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 AR20190002947 4