1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 6 March 2020 b. Date Received: 6 March 2020 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge was unjust and warranted. The applicant states, he had a racist command, and a command that personally did not like him. The applicant has several statements from his previous command as well as his old first line supervisors, squad leaders and great NCOs in the Army. If it had not been for his command's personal dislike of the applicant, he more than likely would still have been in the military, fulfilling a promising career. The applicant believes his four plus years of service reflects honorable service. The applicant states, he was personally told by his First Sergeant before they headed out to Egypt for their "MFO" deployment that "when we get down there, don't you go starting no black panther chapters up out there" and when the applicant reported it to his CO, the applicant was brushed off. The applicant's his CO did not like him and told the applicant that "you don't belong in my Army and that's what we are going to do, we are going to get you out." The applicant states, his CO never liked the applicant when took over their company. Midway through the deployment and his CO would give him a hard time along with his First Sergeant. The applicant believes he was personally targeted the evidence used was something from two years prior to the date and was actually used just to create a false narrative to support is "patterns of misconduct" to push the chapter packet. The applicant states there were many other Soldiers who had been in similar or the same situations and due to them being white, it was kept quiet and swept under the rug, but when it was a minority, they were to "be made an example of". This kind of leadership was the same toxic leadership and reason why the retention numbers are so low. The applicant states, he would have loved to continue his military career and see where he could have taken things. The applicant would even desire to do some things outside the military, but his unjust and unfair discharge is hindering him. The applicant believes he deserves based not only his time in, but what he has also done with that time in. The applicant was a high-speed Soldier, a grunt who loved his job and was fast tracking. Even if he were unable to get back in the military, an upgrade would help change his life for the better and help him to close a chapter on his life that has been weighing him down and finally move forward. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 18 December 2020, and by a 3-2 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 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 25 June 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 18 April 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 16 March 2017, he was disrespectful to a Non-Commissioned Officer; On or about 28 February 2017, he was disrespectful to a Non-Commissioned Officer; On or about 28 May 2016, he was derelict in the performance of his duties; and, On or about 28 May 2016, he failed to obey a lawful general regulation. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: .25 April 2017 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 24 May 2017 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 6 November 2015 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 94 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 4 years, 7 months, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 13 November 2012 - 5 November 2015 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, Egypt, SWA / Afghanistan (6 August 2013 - 19 April 2014) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2; NDSM, GWOTEM; GWOTSM; ASR, OSR-2; NATOMDL; MFOSM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Commander's Inquiry Findings and Recommendations, dated 19 June 2016, the investigation officer found, in part: The applicant violated FSOP Regulation 110 and an order from his Troop leadership prohibiting the use of MFO vehicles for any exit off OP 3-10 that was not an evacuation or resupply. Even though the applicant stated he was not aware of FSOP 110, which requires notification to the closest SCC prior to movement from a remote site, the applicant was aware that he needed to inform his leadership if he moved off of OP 3-10, and that he failed to do so in this instance. The applicant was in charge at the time of the movement off OP 3-10. Both the applicant and SPC D were not wearing the proper duty uniform, both at the remote site and while conducting the movement from OP 3-10 to the Sharm Airfield. CG Article 15, dated 12 October 2016, for dereliction of duty (28 May 2016); and, failed to obey a leaful general regulation by wrongfully wearing a combination of civilian and military attire (28 May 2016). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; forfeiture of $485 pay; extra duty and restriction for 14 days; and, oral reprimand. Several Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 7 March 2017, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Alcohol Abuse (by history). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; five third-party letters. 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. 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 12b, pattern of misconduct. National Defense Authorization Act 2017 provided specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) in connection with combat or sexual assault or sexual harassment as a basis for discharge review. Further, it provided that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; as a basis for the discharge. In August 2017, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provided further clarifying guidance to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents 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. 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 the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed. However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Pattern of Misconduct," and the separation code is "JKA." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends that he was discriminated by members of his chain of command; however, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant contends that other Soldiers with similar offenses were not discharged. However, the method in which another Soldier's case was handled is not relevant to the applicant's case. Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case. The applicant contends that he had good service, which included a combat tour. 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 applicant is to be commended for his accomplishments. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. However, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of "3." There are no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or to the RE code. An RE Code of "3" indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist. If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. They all recognize his strong work ethic in the Army; however, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, none of these statements provides any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. 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 18 December 2020, and by a 3-2 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 / 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 AR20200009596 1