1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 2 January 2016 b. Date Received: 14 March 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 the receive his GI Bill benefits for education and one day rejoin the military as an officer and serve honorably. The applicant contends that his discharge should be upgraded based on his commander failing to properly and fairly handle his situation. The applicant was administered two Article 15s but, according to the applicant, was never given a fair opportunity to be promoted in a timely manner, consistently counseled on his improvements or shortcomings, or given a chance to change units for a fresh start. The applicant feels that at this time his command was intent on documenting any negative aspects of his character and actions because of his DUI. He believes his discharge should be upgraded because he should not have to forfeit his benefits due to his leadership's failure to support him in becoming a better Soldier. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant did not have mitigating medical or behavioral health conditions for the offenses which led to his separation from the Army. A limited review through the JLV (Joint Legacy Viewer) of the applicant's Veterans Affairs records notes nine problems (all DoD) with no VA notes found. The Veterans Affairs has not service-connected the applicant. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 10 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 20 December 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 3 June 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: controlled a vehicle while drunk (30 March 2014); and failed to obey a lawful order from a commissioned officer (28 March 2015), not to leave the Squadron Headquarters without an NCO escort (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 6 September 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 4 December 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions). The decision was made by the separation authority after reviewing the medical evaluation board proceedings and administrative separation proceedings conducted pursuant to Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b. It was determined that the applicant's physical condition was not a direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct that led to the recommendation for administrative elimination. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 16 April 2013 / 3 years, 18 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 92 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 19D10, Cavalry Scout / 2 years, 8 months, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 30 March 2014, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation for drunken driving. (Based on the Commander's Report) CG Article 15, dated 30 April 2015, for failing to be at his appointed place of duty and disobeying a lawful order. His punishment consisted of reduction to E-1 (suspended); forfeiture of $360 pay (suspended), 14 days extra duty and restriction, and an oral reprimand; (Based on the Commander's Report) FG Article 15, dated 21 May 2014, for driving a vehicle while intoxicated. His punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $765 pay per month for two months, and 45 days extra duty and restriction. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 10 June 2014, for operating a motor vehicle while drunk with a breath alcohol test result of .146. The applicant received numerous negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and performance counseling. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 9 April 2015, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with (Axis I) adjustment disorder with depressed mood, alcohol dependence and abuse. It was noted that the applicant had been previously treated for adjustment disorder with depressed mood and for substance abuse. Neither of these conditions could be considered to have impaired or removed the applicant's ability to make sound decisions or interfered with his perception of reality. The applicant had always retained full control and responsibility for his own actions. The applicant was cleared for chapter action at that time. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online 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 14-12b addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 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's contentions regarding his commander failing to properly and fairly handle his situation, never being given an opportunity to improve, or to change units for a fresh start 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 he was unjustly or unfairly treated at the time of discharge. In fact, the applicant's two Articles 15 and numerous negative counseling statements justify a pattern of misconduct. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. The evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in conforming and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non- judicial punishment. It appears as a result of his failure to respond appropriately, separation actions were initiated. It should also be noted, by regulation, an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of pattern of misconduct. It appears the applicant's generally good record of service was the basis for his receiving a GD instead of the normal UOTHC discharge. The applicant expressed his desire for an upgrade for the purpose of being able the receive his GI Bill benefits for education and one day rejoin the military as an officer and serve honorably. 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. Further, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3. There are no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or to the RE code. An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist. If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. 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 10 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 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 AR20160005252 4