1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 21 July 2015 b. Date Received: 24 July 2015 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge characterization to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he served his first contract honorable in the United States and Afghanistan. He was three months from completing his second contract before his new unit used two past investigations as a basis of his general discharge. About a year into his second enlistiment, he and his wife had a physical altercation which led to a DUI charge. The charges were later dropped because the breathalyzer was not calibrated correctly. The applicant acknowledged his mistake and stated that he should not have gotten behind the wheel of a vehicle that night, but everyone makes mistakes at some point in life and deserves a second chance. Finally, he would like to be able to use 100 percent of education benefits so he can further his education and pursue a career instead of going into debt. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 26 August 2016, 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: 15 October 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 3 September 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant drove while intoxicated, on or near Richmond Hill, Georgia (2 July 2014). (3) Recommended Characterization: General, Under Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 8 September 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: N/A (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 23 September 2014 / General, Under Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 4 October 2012 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 95 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-4 / 92F10, Petroleum Supply / 4 years, 3 months, and 17 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: RA, 29 June 2010 – 3 October 2012 / HD e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Afghanistan (14 March 2013 – 5 November 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2, ACM-2CS, AGCM, NDSM, GWTSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR, NATO Medal, KDSM g. Performance Ratings: N/A h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form), dated 2 July 2014, for driving under the influence i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, dated 21 July 2015; DD Form 214; Georgia State Court document, dated 3 August 2014; and U.S. Army Criminal investigation Command letter, dated 16 April 2015. 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 characterization to honorable. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends that he had good service which included a deployment to Afghanistan. The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incident 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 incident of misconduct. The applicant contends his command used past investigations to justify discharging him. However, the rationale the applicant provided as the basis for what he believes was an unfair discharge is not supportable by the evidence contained in the record and can only be viewed as speculative in nature. Further 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. The applicant stated he would like to be able to use 100 percent of his education benefits to pursue a career instead of going into debt. However, such issues do not form a basis to upgrade a discharge characterization. Further, 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. 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 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 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 26 August 2016, 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 a New Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change SPD/RE Code to: No Change e. Restore (Restoration of) Grade to: No Change 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 AR20150012916 1