1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 12 December 2016 b. Date Received: 13 December 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 and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge and reason for separation were inequitable because they were based on one isolated incident in 24 months of service with no other adverse action; and, the incident was not accurately represented at the time of separation. He was given recognition for his positive and honorable service within his term of service. He states, granting his request will have a tremendous positive effect on his future career and educational endeavors and aspirations. At the time of separation, he was focused on exhausting every effort of being retained and he did not appeal the discharge decision. The discharge was based on several serious allegations against him, including a DUI, evasion to elude arrest, speeding and running a stop sign. The hearing process took more than a year, but now it has concluded, resulting in the most serious allegations being dismissed. He was charged with two misdemeanor traffic offenses, including the lowest class of DUI. He states this event was absolutely a poor decision and a mistake, but it was misrepresented at the time of separation. He sought proper treatment for the given offense, but there was no tendency of alcohol abuse and the events were largely exaggerated at the time of separation. He states, his service was honorable with the utmost professionalism and pride for serving in the Army. Since his discharge, he continues to strive to demonstrate his good character and self- improvement. He notes his achievements during his university studies and working at a hospital while attending school full-time. Additionally, he volunteered and continued to have no other infractions on his driving and or criminal record. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 9 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 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 26 July 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 24 April 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 14 March 2015, he operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated. A lawfully administered intoximeter test determined his BAC to be .12 percent; He was cited for fleeing to elude an arrest with a motor vehicle; and, Failure to stop at a stop sign. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 28 April 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 18 May 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 24 July 2013 / 3 years, 34 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / 2 years college / 132 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 35M10, Human Intelligence Collector / 2 years, 3 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 14 March 2015 reflects the applicant was apprehended and charged by the Fayetteville Police Department, NC, with: Impaired Driving (.12 percent AC); Fleeing to elude arrest w/ motor vehicle; and, Failed to stop at stop sign. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 10 April 2015, for being arrested in Fayetteville, North Carolina for driving under the influence after being stopped for speeding. He attempted to elude officers, which led to a vehicle pursuit ending on a dead-end road. An intoximeter test determined his BAC to be .12 percent. 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: He states, he continues to strive to demonstrate his good character and self-improvement. He notes his achievements during his university studies and working at a hospital while attending school full-time. Additionally, he volunteers and continues to have no other infractions on his driving and or criminal record. 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. 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). 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 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is "JKQ"." 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 the charges, which served as the basis for his discharge, were dismissed after his discharge. However, the evidence of the record, reflects the charges against the applicant were mitigated as part of his civil court proceedings. 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. Further, the applicant's command would not have been bound by the outcome of any civil proceedings. The character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. The applicant contends that he had good service. 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 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 9 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 AR20160019098 3