1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 23 February 2016 b. Date Received: 29 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 attend a trade school to further himself and to provide his country with a skilled and capable worker. The applicant contends the discharge he received was too harsh a punishment for his offense. He did not contest the Article 15 he received, while accepting responsibility for his action. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant's complaint of depression and anxiety was related to his administrative discharge. A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) evaluation on 6 August 2013 rejected any of his mental health diagnoses as disabling. His pre-discharge Mental Status Exam cleared him for discharge, though recommended he have prohibitions on drinking and that he remain in ASAP. The MSE also reported the applicant had negative screens for PTSD and TBI. The applicant did have a physical condition that resulted in his administrative discharge and a MEB being considered by a Major General on 31 October 2013. Major General M.H.S. selected administrative discharge instead of the MEB. Records in the JLV showed no VA diagnoses and no VA disability percentages. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 26 April 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: 27 November 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 6 September 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated (31 March 2013). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 11 September 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 31 October 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions). Evidence reflects the decision was made in accordance with AR 635- 200, paragraph 1-33(c) in that the applicant's disability was not the cause or substantial contributing cause, of the misconduct and no other circumstances warrant disability processing instead of alternated administrative separation. As a result it was directed that the case not be processed through medical disability channels. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 6 July 2010 / 3 years, 17 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 119 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 3 years, 4 months, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska, SWA / Afghanistan (10 May 2011 to 2 May 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, ACM-2CS, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR-2, NATOMDL, CIB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 31 March 2013, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation for drunken driving. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 20 May 2013, for driving under the influence of alcohol on 31 March 2013 with a .072 percent breathe alcohol content (BAC). FG Article 15, dated 23 May 2013, for physically controlling a vehicle while drunk (31 March 2013). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1 and 45 days extra duty and restriction. Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings, dated (6 August 2013) / MEB Narrative Summary, shows the applicant was diagnosed with chronic abdominal pain S/P Ileocecectomy from complications of appendicitis (AR 40-501 Chapter 3-6a). VA diagnosis: Complicated Appendicitis S/P IIeocecectomy with residual Chronic abdominal Pain and Scar. Negative counseling statement for disobeying a lawful and direct order, drinking while on GRF, receiving a moving traffic violation on posts and receiving a DUI on post. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 10 April 2013, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with (Axis I) alcohol dependence. It was noted that he was enrolled in ASAP and that he was severely abusing alcohol and it was imperative that he continue to received substance abuse treatment and be prohibited from all use of alcohol. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 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. 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 the discharge he received was too harsh a punishment for his offense and that he did not contest the Article 15 he received. The applicant's contentions were noted; 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 this issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that his punishment was too harsh. In fact, by violating the Army's policy not to drink and drive, the applicant compromised the special trust and confidence placed in a Soldier. The applicant, as a Soldier, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's policies. By drinking and driving, the applicant knowingly risked a military career that ultimately caused his discharge from the Army. The applicant expressed his desire for an upgrade for the purpose of being able to attend a trade school. 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 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 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 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 AR20160005144 4