1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 28 January 2016 b. Date Received: 1 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 was discharged for being accused of driving under the influence (DUI); however, the charge was not supported and was reverted to reckless driving. His discharge was rushed prior to the outcome of any hearings. He requests that the discharge be upgraded as he was told that it could be by the JAG officers that advised him. He was also advised that he could not use the Post 9/11 GI Bill. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant has no relevant psychiatric diagnoses. He had negative screens for PTSD and TBI in his pre-discharge Mental Status Exam (MSE), and was cleared for discharge. His pre- discharge medical exam gave him an 111111 profile. The applicant is not basing his case on his behavioral health status. He was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving, but refused to do a field sobriety test or breathalyzer. He has no service-connected disability percentages in the JLV. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 26 April 2017, and by a 3-2 vote the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include his combat service, and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to 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: 9 April 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 21 February 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant drove drunk (1 January 2015). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 25 February 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 13 March 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 15 April 2014 / 2 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 / HS Graduate / 115 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 4 years, 2 months, 27 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 13 January 2011 to 14 April 2014 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (30 April 2012 to 20 January 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, AGCM, NDSM, ACM-CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL, CIB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 26 January 2015, reflects the applicant was screened for PTSD and mTBI, and both screens were negative. From behavioral health perspective, the applicant met the medical fitness standards for retention per AR 40-501 3-31 to 3-37 as there was no indication of a boardable behavioral health disorder at the time. He was cleared from a behavioral health perspective for administrative separation in accordance with 635-200. Several negative counseling statements for driving under the influence, an adverse FLAG action, being recommended for separation, and an alcohol abuse flag action. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical Examination, dated 20 February 2015, reflects that the applicant was diagnosed with a sleep disturbance. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; Thurston County District Court document; Thurston County District Court, Judgment and Sentence / Pretrial Release Order; Class D driver's license; and a Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (FLAG); 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. 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 he was discharged for being accused of driving under the influence (DUI); however, the charge was not supported and was reverted to reckless driving. The record of evidence, Thurston County District Court, Judgment and Sentence / Pretrial Release Order, reflects that the applicant was fined $483, his sentence was continued for 24 months; and at the end of this period, if the applicant met all the conditions outlined in the pretrial release order, then the charges would be amended to reckless driving RCW 46,61,500. The applicant further contends, his discharge was rushed prior to the outcome of any hearings. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that a Soldier may be separated when action is taken that is tantamount to a finding of guilty, if a punitive discharge is authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts Martial. 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, that his discharge should be upgraded as he was told that it could be by the JAG officers that advised him. The US Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 293 requesting a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines the characterization of service or the reasons for discharge, or both, were improper or inequitable. The applicant additionally contends, he was advised that he could not use the Post 9/11 GI Bill. 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 26 April 2017, and by a 3-2 vote the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include his combat service, and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to 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: 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 AR20160004163 1