1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 4 February 2016 b. Date Received: 11 February 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he would like an upgrade for the purpose of being able to obtain his education benefits. The applicant contends he was involved in two incidents that led to his discharge in 14 years of service. Prior to these two incidents his service was exemplary. He believes there are extenuating circumstances surrounding these events; the first event involved being arrested for DUI, which the courts found him not guilty of DUI but guilty of failure to exercise due care (a misdemeanor offense). This resulted in a fine which was paid; therefore he believes the civil courts ruling should have been taken into consideration by his commanding officers and allowed them to exclude any negative information within his personnel file. The second event involved the use of another individual's medication to help with his medical condition. As a result of an infection after the removal of a wisdom tooth he choose to use the un-prescribed medication which was offered to him. He believes the circumstances surrounding both of these events be taken into consideration and his current characterization of service be upgraded to honorable. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 16 June 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: 18 August 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 26 March 2012 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 30 / HS Graduate / 107 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 12B30, Combat Engineer / 15 years, 1 month, 7 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, (12 July 2000 to 5 August 2003) / HD RA, (6 August 2003 to 9 August 2007) / HD RA, (10 August 2007 to 25 March 2012) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Kuwait (17 April 2001 to 17 August 2001) and Iraq (17 March 2004 to 16 March 2005; 4 October 2006 to 17 September 2007; and 15 December 2008 to 14 December 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: MSM, ARCOM-6, AAM-5, AGCM-4, NDSM, AFEM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ICM-4CS, NOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-3, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 2 March 2012 to 1 June 2014 (three reports), Among the Best 2 June 2014 to 1 June 2015, Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; character statements; court document from the state court of Liberty County, Georgia; partial documents from his separation packet listing his awards and decorations. The partial documents also indicate in paragraph 2(f) that on or about 19 June 2014, the applicant was found operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol content of .098 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 to honorable. The applicant's available record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. Barring evidence to the contrary, the presumption of government regularity prevails as all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The applicant's contentions about his discharge should be upgraded because of extenuating circumstances surrounding the events leading to his discharge were carefully considered. However, it is unknown if these contentions have merit because the facts and circumstances leading to the discharge are not contained in the service record. The burden of proof remains with the former Soldier to provide the appropriate documents such as the discharge packet or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration. The applicant also contends that prior to the two incidents that led to his discharge his service was exemplary. 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. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service after the incidents. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. It should be noted by regulation, an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of misconduct (serious offense). It appears the applicant's generally good record of service was the basis for his receiving a GD instead of the normal UOTHC discharge. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. The applicant expressed his desire for an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to obtain his education 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. 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 16 June 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 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 AR20160004078 1