1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 11 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 was already punished for an AWOL incident, which never occurred, and he received a DUI in which he believes is why his company decided to kick him out. The applicant contends that he has been very honorable to the Army and his current characterization of service slanders his character and name. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 3 May 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 (AWOL) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c(1) / JKD / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 12 September 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 18 July 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: AWOL (5 November 2011 through 8 November 2011); stopped by Fort Bragg Military Police for a traffic violation, which revealed the applicant was driving under the influence. He was charged with underage drinking, which was reduced to reckless driving (4 June 2011); and, charged with a DUI, failure to stop at a red light, and failure to maintain control of his vehicle (28 April 2012). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 3 August 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 3 February 2010 / 4 years, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 90 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 42A10, Human Resources Specialist / 2 years, 7 months, 7 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 27 June 2012, reflects the applicant was apprehended for impaired driving (.14% AC) (On Post) and failure to maintain lane (On Post) (26 June 2012). General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 8 August 2012, for being arrested for DUI after being stopped for failing to maintain the limits of his lane (BAC .14%). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 3 days (AWOL, 5 to 7 November 2011) / NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with all allied documents listed in block 7 of the application. 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(1) allows for an absentee returned to military control from a status of absent without leave or desertion to be separated for commission of a serious offense. 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 that 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 contends that he was already punished for an AWOL incident, which never occurred, and he received a DUI in which he believes is why his company decided to kick him out. 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 be retained on active duty. Furthermore, 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. Further the sworn statements were considered by the separation authority at the time of the separation proceedings. The applicant contends that he has been very honorable to the Army and his current characterization of service slanders his character and name. 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. The applicant is to be commended for his accomplishments. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. They all recognize his good conduct while in the Army; however, these statements were considered by the separation authority at the time of the separation proceedings. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity 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 3 May 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 AR20160005196 1