1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 October 2015 b. Date Received: 28 October 2015 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident during his service with no other adverse action. The civilian courts reduced the DUI to reckless driving; however, the applicant received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), was not allowed to go on leave, his on post driving privileges were suspended, and was placed on another 45 days punishment while in the field. The applicant states that he was told he would not be chaptered. The applicant contends that he was young, the unit had just returned from the field, and he acted out foolishly. He was a good Soldier and is still very disheartened by the whole thing. He needs an upgrade to honorable so that he can use 70 percent of his GI Bill to finish college. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available at the time, the applicant does not have a mitigating Behavioral Health Disorder for the offenses which led to his discharge from the Army. Both the military and VA electronic medical records were reviewed. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 15 February 2017, 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: 20 November 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 9 September 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant drove while intoxicated with a blood alcohol content of .211. He lost control of his vehicle and struck a stop sign. Tacoma Police arrived at the scene where he refused a field sobriety test, he was arrested and booked into jail (4 February 2014). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 10 September 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 18 September 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 5 March 2013 / 3 years, 18 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / Associate's Degree / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 19D10, Cavalry Scout / 1 year, 8 months, 14 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report dated, 4 February 2014, for driving under the influence of alcohol, MVA/VEH-OB/non-injury, off post. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 31 March 2014, for being apprehended by civilian law enforcement officials in Pierce County, Washington for driving under the influence of alcohol with a BAC of .211. Two negative counseling statements for driving under the influence and being recommended for chapter proceedings. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 1 day (Confinement Civil Authorities, 7 December 2013 to 8 December 2013) / released j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 4 June 2014, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with (Axis I) alcohol related disorders. The applicant was not experiencing any behavioral health issues. The applicant was psychiatrically cleared and competent to undergo any administrative proceedings as per AR 635-200. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; GOMOR with filing determination documents; and his separation packet. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant attended Washington State Alcohol and Drug Information School and completed a Victim's Impact Panel. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 allows for separation for misconduct with paragraph 14-1 allowing for separating personnel because of minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, or absence without leave. Paragraph 14-2 states action will be taken to separate a Soldier for misconduct when it is clearly established that despite attempts to rehabilitate or develop him/her as a Soldier further effort is not likely to succeed; rehabilitation is impracticable or the Soldier is not amenable to rehabilitation. 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. Secretary of Defense Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments (Subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, dated September 3, 2014), provided guidance to help ensure consistency across the military services in consideration of PTSD relevant to Service Members' discharges. "Liberal consideration will be given in petitions for changes in characterization of service to service treatment record entries which document one of more symptoms which meet the diagnostic criteria of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or related conditions. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations which document PTSD or PTSD-related conditions connected to military services. In cases where Service Records or any document from the period of service substantiated the existence of one or more symptoms of what is now recognized as PTSD or PTSD-related condition during the time of service, liberal consideration will be given to finding that PTSD existed at the time of service. Liberal consideration will also be given in cases where civilian providers confer diagnoses of PTSD or PTSD-related conditions, when case records contain narratives that support symptomatology at the time of service, or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that PTSD or a PTSD-related disorder existed at the time of discharge which might have mitigated the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. This guidance in not applicable to cases involving pre- existing conditions which are determined not to have been incurred or aggravated while in military service." 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge 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 contends that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident during his service with no other adverse action. Although an isolated incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by an isolated incident provides the basis for a characterization of service. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant further contends the civilian courts reduced the DUI to reckless driving; however, he received a GOMOR, was not allowed to go on leave, his on post driving privileges were suspended, and was placed on another 45 days punishment while in the field. The applicant states that he was told he would not be chaptered. 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, he was young and the unit had just returned from the field and he acted out foolishly. The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The applicant additionally contends, he was a good Soldier and still very disheartened by the whole thing. 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. Lastly, the applicant contends, he needs an upgrade to honorable so that he can use 70 percent of his GI Bill to finish college. 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 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 15 February 2017, 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: 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 AR20150017527 1