1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 25 June 2016 b. Date Received: 13 July 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident during 18 months of service with no other adverse action. His character statements indicate he was clearly capable of rehabilitation and was an asset to the military. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 25 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 (Civil Conviction) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14, SEC II / JKB / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 19 June 2014 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 28 April 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason for his discharge; he was tried by the Suwon District Court and found guilty of a violation of the Road Traffic Act (DUI) (9 January 2014) (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 30 April 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 28 May 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 15 May 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 30 years / College Graduate / 120 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 2 years, 1 month, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: An administrative General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 6 August 2013, for driving while intoxicated. On 30 August 2013, he showed a severe lack of judgment by driving while under the influence of alcohol. After consuming alcohol, he operated his vehicle and struck a median strip. Subsequently, his Blood Alcohol Content measure 0.143%, which is above the legal limit in the Republic of Korea. A negative counseling statement, dated 20 February 2014, notifying the applicant of the intent to initiate separation proceedings. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); self-authored statement; 11 character statements; and a letter, Director, Case Management Division. 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. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade 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 misconduct (civil conviction), 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, his discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident during 18 months of service with no other adverse action. Although an isolated incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization of service. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant further contends, his character statements indicate he was clearly capable of rehabilitation and was an asset to the military. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance; however, none of the statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16d(2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements states, the rehabilitative requirements may be waived by the separation authority in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate that such transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. After reviewing the applicant's discharge packet, the separation authority properly waived the rehabilitative requirements. 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 25 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 AR20160012686 4