1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 29 November 2016 b. Date Received: 1 December 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he was hung over at work, but was able to perform his duties correctly and in no way did it affect his ability to perform. He was being treated unfairly by his chain of command for the simple fact, that he watched other Soldiers getting a "slap on the wrist" after failing drug tests, showing up to work actually drunk, and Soldiers driving to work intoxicated. His brigade commander was recently relieved of duty due to violating EEO regulations and failing to treat his Soldiers with dignity and respect and he was one of those Soldiers. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 7 March 2018, 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, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 16 February 2016 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 January 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; he carried a weapon onto an alcohol premises; and he was unable to perform his duties due to being intoxicated (21 April 2015). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 20 January 2016 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 2 February 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 29 April 2013 / 3 years, 16 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 years / HS Graduate / 109 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 11B10, Infantryman / 2 years, 9 months, 18 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan, 2 February 2014 to 11 September 2014 f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, ACM-CS, GWOTSM, ASR, NATO MDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: An administrative General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 16 March 2016, for unlawfully carrying a handgun. The applicant received several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and being recommended for separation from the Army. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application (six pages); sworn statement; and a 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 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 (serious offense), 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, he was hung over at work, but was able to perform his duties correctly and in no way did it affect his ability to perform. A counseling statement shows on 21 April 2015, the applicant was command directed to be tested to determine his blood alcohol content level (BAC). The result of the test revealed that he had a BAC level of .124 which showed he was drunk on duty. The applicant further contends, he was being treated unfairly by his chain of command for the simple fact, that he watched other Soldiers getting a "slap on the wrist" after failing drug tests, showing up to work actually drunk, and Soldiers driving to work intoxicated. 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 applicant also contends, his brigade commander was relieved of duty due to violating EEO regulations and failing to treat his Soldiers with dignity and respect and he was one of those Soldiers. The applicant bears the burden of presenting substantial and credible evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discriminated. 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 7 March 2018, 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 AR20160018547 2