1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 July 2017 b. Date Received: 11 August 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge upgrade should be considered due to his service records. He served in the Army for almost 14 years and his discharge was based on an isolated incident in 14 years of service. He received the Good Conduct Medal, other awards and was recognized for efficiency fidelity for his service. He states, he was reprimanded and separated after a police officer found him in his parked car with the engine running. The officer suspected that he had been drinking and he was given a discharge based on being arrested for a DUI. He states, he has not been convicted through the court system and he is currently appealing the dui case with his lawyer, due to the fact that he was never release after a bond was paid. He stayed in the jail three hours when he should have been released. At that time, he should have been able to go to the hospital and draw blood to show he was not intoxicated. His military chain of command never took this information in to account when they punished and discharged him. He states, because of this, he should not have been discharged from the military because he is still in the appeals process. The applicant states, his family has also been affected from this and he has not been able to find a job because his security clearance has been affected. He asks the broad to look through his case alone with his military service record. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 13 October 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 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 25 November 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 8 July 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 21 April 2014, he was driving under the influence. On 12 August 2013, he received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand for making sexually suggestive statements to a female Soldier in his squad. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 8 July 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 9 September 2014, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of his rights. On 16 October 2014, the administrative separation board convened and the applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended the applicant's discharge with characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. On 7 November 2014, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board and directed the applicant's discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 7 November 2014 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 30 March 2012 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 30 / HS Graduate / 89 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-7 / 25U4P, Signal Support System Specialist / 14 years, 1 month, 24 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 2 October 2000 - 13 September 2004 / HD RA, 14 September 2004 - 2 October 2006 / HD RA, 3 October 2006 - 29 October 2012 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (18 April 2004 - 20 April 2005), Iraq (5 August 2006 - 23 September 2007) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM-3, AAM, AGCM-4, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, NCOPDR-3, ASR, OSR-2, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 1 March 2012 - 28 February 2013 / Among The Best 1 March 2013 - 28 February 2014 / Among The Best h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 17 July 2014, for operating a motor vehicle while impaired. On 21 April 2014, a police officer discovered him in a parked and running vehicle in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Upon suspicion of intoxication, he was administered field sobriety tests, which he failed. He subsequently refused to take a breathalyzer test and was arrested for driving while impaired. His actions were unacceptable and would not be tolerated. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application, with all allied documents listed in the supporting documentation information section of the application. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Pursuing his degree. 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 under other than 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 be retained on Active Duty. The applicant contends he should not have been discharged because he was in the process of appealing the DUI at the time of his discharge. He contends his chain of command did not consider during the discharge proceedings. 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. Further, the reasons for the applicant's discharge included other misconduct not related to the DUI charge. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. The applicant contends the event that caused his discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends that he had good service which included two combat tours. 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 Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the characterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character 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 third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. They all recognize his good conduct after leaving 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 provide 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 13 October 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 AR20160013179 1