1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 31 May 2016 b. Date Received: 16 June 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge stemmed from an incident that happened in February 2014. The chapter process was started by his outgoing company commander, who then directly turned it over to the incoming commander no less than a week or two later. The CSM and the battalion commander at the time, said there was to be no action other than the starting process of a chapter until blood work was received for the incident. A month or two later following the incident, the morning of a change of responsibility between the old CSM and the incoming CSM, he was given his reading for his UCMJ by the out-going CSM. He was told that the punishment that he received under the UCMJ, would be the extent of action that he would receive for the incident that had occurred. He completed ASAP after the incident and was never counseled again for any alcohol related situation. He maintained his morale and not once did he let the situation negatively affect his work performance. He regained his rank of PFC 90 days after receiving his UCMJ punishment and maintained it for the next year. He was flagged for a whole year for adverse action and a chapter, but he was never once given a reason why and he was led to believe that his chapter process was over. He states he was abruptly chaptered a year following the incident and received a general discharge. He believes his character following the incident merits a discharge of honorable stature. Since his discharge, he has received an opportunity to continue his career path as an IT Specialist, but he would like to regain education benefits in order to further his education. Without an honorable discharge, he is unable to obtain certain jobs due to schooling that can be paid for with his education benefits. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 6 September 2017, 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: 17 June 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 18 February 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He committed a serious offense for which the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or closely related offense under the MCM. Specifically, on 29 March 2014, he refused to submit to a lawful breath test and was arrested for DUI, in violation of Alaska Statute 28.35.031 assimilated into Federal law by 18 U.S. Code Section 13. (3) Recommended Characterization: The company commander recommended that the applicant be retained. (4) Legal Consultation Date: 24 February 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 24 March 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 30 October 2012 / 5 years, 32 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 105 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 25B10, IT Specialist / 2 years, 7 months, 18 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 5 March 2014, for urinating on the floor of the barracks (3 March 2014). The punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction for 14 days. Military Police Report, dated 29 March 2014, reflects the applicant was apprehended for Drunken Driving (on Post). FG Article 15, dated 14 May 2014, for refusing to submit to a lawful breath test following an arrest for DUI, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ, on 29 March 2014. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $765 pay per month for two months (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 12 November 2014, 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. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 dated 31 May 2016 and 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 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 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 he was told that the UCMJ punishment that he received would be the extent of any actions against him for the misconduct, which led to his discharge. However, 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 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 contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. However, 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 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 September 2017, 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 new Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. SPD/RE Code Change to: No Change f. Restoration to Grade: 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 AR20160011823 1