1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 17 April 2015 b. Date Received: 14 May 2015 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge or honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, he performed his assigned duties in a manner that merits an honorable discharge. His discharge was an overly harsh punishment for the incident that occurred. (The applicant detailed the events surrounding the DUI incident that led to his discharge) He believed he was not legally intoxicated at the time; however, that proved to be an error in his judgment. Although he willingly took the breathalyzer test, he was informed of being chaptered out of the service. He informed his Battalion Commander and Battalion Command Sergeant Major that he was due to ETS in another 60 days and wanted to serve his last 60 days in the Army. While attending the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP), he found out that other Soldiers in attendance were not being discharged for their offenses, but were punished by a Field Grade Article 15. He asked his leadership about the possibility of receiving an Article 15 punishment. He was informed that 82nd had a no tolerance policy and was being discharged 60 days prior to his ETS date. This is overly harsh punishment for the circumstances as other Soldiers were allowed to complete the ASAP program and stay in the Army. His overall service was honorable as evidence by two ARCOM awards and two AAM awards, including an AGCM, serving combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, and receiving the CIB. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 29 July 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length and quality of his service, to include his combat service. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. (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: 18 April 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 20 February 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was arrested for driving while impaired on 9 November 2012. (3) Recommended Characterization: General, Under Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: Waived, 26 February 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: N/A (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 18 June 2013 / General, Under Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 24 January 2008 / 5 years, 19 weeks b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 103 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-5 / 11B2P, Infantryman / 5 years, 2 months, and 25 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (20 August 2009 – 26 July 2010), Afghanistan (21 March 2012 – 5 September 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-2, AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, ACM-CS, ICM-CS, GWTSM, ASR-2, NATO Medal, CIB, MUC g. Performance Ratings: 1 July 2010 – 30 June 2011, Fully Capable     1 July 2012 – 17 January 2013, Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 12 October 2011, for failing to report (5 September 2011) and two occasions of disobey a lawful order. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4, forfeiture of $1,061 for two months (suspended), 45 days of extra duty, and 30 days of restriction. (NIF, but according to the unit commander’s forwarding memorandum, dated 20 February 2013) There are no other documentary evidence of any negative counseling statements or adverse information in the record. i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, dated 17 April 2015; a self-authored statement; and 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 his general, under honorable conditions discharge or honorable. The applicant’s record of service, and 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 by violating the Army's policy not to abuse alcohol, compromised the special trust and confidence placed in an NCO. The applicant, as an NCO, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's alcohol abuse policies. By abusing alcohol, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of his service. 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. The applicant contends the discharge was unjust because his discharge was an overly harsh punishment for the incident that occurred, he was discharged 60 days prior to completing his military service, and other Soldiers with similar incidents of misconduct were allowed to continue their service. However, there is 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 his issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he may have been unjustly discharged. The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. Regarding the applicant’s claim that his discharge was overly harsh for the incident of misconduct, the service record indicates the applicant committed discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant’s incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. Further, the method in which another Soldier’s case was handled is not relevant to the applicant’s case. Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case. In consideration of the applicant's post-service accomplishments since his discharge, the Board can find that his in-service accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. 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 29 July 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length and quality of his service, to include his combat service. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change SPD/RE Code to: No Change e. Restore (Restoration of) Grade to: NA AUTHENTICATING OFFICIAL: COL, US ARMY Presiding Officer Army Discharge Review Board Legend: 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 BH – Behavioral Health HD - Honorable Discharge OAD - Ordered to Active Duty SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OMPF - Official Military Personnel File TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP – Military Police – PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS – Entry Level Status MST – Military Sexual Trauma RE - Reentry UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20150008909 4