IN THE CASE OF: Ms. BOARD DATE: 10 April 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140006699 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. Presiding Officer I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Department of the Army Discharge Review Board in this case. THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND STATEMENT: 1. The applicant requests to upgrade the characterization of her service from general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable. 2. The applicant states, in pertinent part and in effect, she was discharged for receiving a citation for driving under the influence (DUI) and refusing to submit to the chemical analysis. She was eventually found not guilty of the DUI charge. The basis for her discharge has ruined her OMPF, and took away three awards and her VA benefits. Her statement includes a description of the events surrounding the citation for the DUI offense. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 11 April 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 6 March 2014 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: 65th MP Co, 503rd MP Bn (Airborne), Fort Bragg, NC f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 9 March 2010, 4 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 3 years, 11 months, 28 days h. Total Service: 3 years, 11 months, 28 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 68W1P, Health Care Specialist m. GT Score: 108 n. Education: 3 years of college / Associate’s Degree o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR r. Administrative Separation Board: None s. Performance Ratings: No t. Counseling Statements: None u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 March 2010, for a period of 4 years. Her ERB, dated 7 March 2014, reflects an ETS date of 8 March 2014. She was 23 years old at the time of entry and had three years of college with an associate’s degree. She was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 68W1P, Health Care Specialist. Her record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement. She completed 3 years, 11 months, and 28 days of active duty service. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 13 January 2014, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason misconduct (serious offense), specifically for the following incidents: a. being arrested for driving while impaired after she was stopped for failing to maintain her lane (131116); b. upon approaching her vehicle, the arresting officer detected an odor of alcohol emitting from her persons; c. refusing to take a lawfully requested intoximeter test; and d. lying to SSG B and Mr. G about what unit she was assigned to (131116). 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of her rights. 3. On 21 January 2014, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and elected to submit a statement on her own behalf; however, she failed to submit any statements. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 4. On 5 February 2014, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 5. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 6 March 2014, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct (serious offense), a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKQ, and an RE code of 3. 6. The applicant’s service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. There are no negative counseling statements. 2. Article 15 (NIF), but according to the unit commander’s forwarding memorandum, dated 30 January 2014, for making false official statements on two separate occasions. The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-3, forfeiture of $470 (suspended), and 14 days of extra duty and restriction, (GG.) 3. A General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 26 December 2013, for being arrested for driving while impaired after she was stopped for failing to maintain her lane; arresting officer detecting an odor of alcohol emitting from her; and refusing to take a lawfully requested intoximeter test. 4. Service School Academic Evaluation Report, dated 26 July 2012, indicates the applicant achieved the course standards of the warrior leaders’ course. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided DD Form 214 for service under current review; a state criminal record search with attachment, dated 28 July 2014; attorney letter, dated 17 June 2014; two state disposed magistrate orders, dated 14 November 2006; state uniform citation, date illegible; memorandum for record, dated 18 November 2013; FLAG, dated 18 November 2013; separation authority’s decision memorandum, dated 5 February 2014; enlistment contract; and ERB. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant provided none. REGULATORY AUTHORITY: 1.  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. 2. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual. 3. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of her discharge was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicant’s service record and the issues and documents submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. 2. The record confirms that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of her service was not consistent with the Army standards for acceptable conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. The applicant by violating the Army's policy not to abuse alcohol, compromised the special trust and confidence placed in a Soldier. The applicant, as a Soldier, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's alcohol abuse policies. By the serious incidents of misconduct and abusing alcohol, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of her service below that meriting an honorable discharge. 3. The applicant contends the basis for her discharge was for receiving a DUI citation and refusing to submit to a chemical analyzer, which she was found not guilty of; however, the record confirms there were additional basis for her separation. There is also a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support her issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that she may have been unjustly discriminated. In fact, the applicant’s Article 15 and GOMOR justify serious incidents of misconduct. The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or sufficient evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. 4. The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of her service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge as shown by the serious incidents of misconduct or by the documented actions under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and a GOMOR. 5. The applicant contends that her current discharge has denied her of her veteran’s benefits. 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. Further, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of obtaining veteran’s benefits. 6. 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 her overall service record. Accordingly, the records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 7. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 10 April 2015 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? NA Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Board Vote: Character Change: 0 No Change: 5 Reason Change: 0 No Change: 5 (Board member names available upon request) Board Action Directed: Issue a new DD Form 214: No Change Characterization to: No Change Change Reason to: No Change Change Authority for Separation: NA Change RE Code to: NA Grade Restoration to: NA Other: NA Legend: AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record FG - Field Grade IADT – Initial Active Duty Training RE - Reentry AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NA - Not applicable SCM- Summary Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial CG - Company Grade Article 15 HD - Honorable Discharge OAD - Ordered to Active Duty UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge CID - Criminal investigation Department MP – Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont) AR20140006699 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1