1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 7 July 2016 b. Date Received: 12 July 2016 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant, through counsel, requests an upgrade of her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable, a narrative reason change and an reentry eligibility code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, it was an arbitrary and capricious policy to mandate initiation of separation on Fort Bragg. This policy was also an abuse of discretion and failed to conform to the larger Army policy of not implementing separation until after two alcohol related incidents. The policy in effect at the time and current Army wide policy, is for the separation of a Soldier after two alcohol related incidents result in separation or Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) failure; neither, which apply in the applicant's situation. This is the only incident in applicant's file, which does not diminish the serious nature of the incident, but does demonstrate its isolated nature. The applicant completed the Prime for Life program under the Fort Bragg, ASAP. During a command directed request for mental health evaluation only positive traits were observed. Counsel states, this case meets neither of the two alcohol related incidents or an ASAP failure and the applicant seems to be the poster child for the purpose behind the Army's ASAP program, rehabilitating and educating Soldiers about unhealthy habits. The facts surrounding this discharge raise another interesting argument for why it was improperly carried out. The local policy in place at the time on Ft Bragg, did not conform to Army wide policy on discipline and was discontinued shortly after. The "one strike and you're out" methodology is no longer Army policy. The policy under which the applicant was discharged differs in material respects from those currently applicable on a service- wide basis and there is substantial doubt that she would have received the same discharge if currently implemented policies were in place. The current Army standard is processing for discharge after two alcohol related incidences in 12 months or for a second DWI during an Army career. The applicant's quality of service was un-marred by any negative information, save this one instance. The character letters included with the application and the lack of derogatory information in her OMPF, attest to this fact. She has many awards and decorations for her time in the service and, besides this one incident, she has no negative information in her file. It is also important to note that there are no records of non-judicial punishment in her file and she was not convicted, nor even charged, with the offense used to justify her discharge. Since leaving the military, the applicant has continued to pursue her education and is enrolled as an undergrad student. She also served with the Veterans Center VA work study program. She accepted her mistake while in the military and has since made lifestyle changes to avoid similar results. The stain on her career of receiving a general discharge is unwarranted and she should be given the honorable discharge her entire career, and post discharge conduct, reflects. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, including case file, AHLTA and JLV. AHLTA notes list following AH diagnoses: Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Depressed Mood, Concussion with no LOC. VA notes indicate she is 90% service connected: 50% for Major Depressive Disorder, 40% for Traumatic Brain Disease (was in car accident in 2010 with no LOC) 30% for migraine headaches, 40% for orthopedic issues. Based on the currently available information, the applicant does not have a mitigating behavioral health diagnosis. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 22 September 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, and post-service accomplishments (i.e., pursuit of undergraduate degree, volunteer work at VA) 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 narrative reason for separation 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 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 14 August 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 30 April 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 7 December 2013, she was arrested for driving under the influence in Fort Bragg, North Carolina. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: Undated / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 October 2013 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 106 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 92A10, Logistics Automation Specialist / 5 years, 1 month, 8 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 7 July 2009 - 17 October 2013 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR g. Performance Ratings: 1 January 2013 - 31 December 2013 / Fully Capable 1 October 2014 - 10 August 2014 / Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 26 December 2013, for being arrested after, driving while impaired on 7 December 2013. An intoximeter test determined her BAC to be 0.14 %. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with all allied documents listed in block 8 of the application. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has continued to pursue her education and is enrolled as an undergrad student. 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. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant, through counsel, requests an upgrade of her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable, a narrative reason change and an reentry eligibility code change. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms that the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of her 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 she should been retained on Active Duty. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed. However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is "JKQ"." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. However, 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 applicant contends she was separated for her misconduct based on a local policy that was not in accordance with the governing regulations. However, 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 her overall service record. The applicant contends she successfully completed ASAP and therefore she should have been retained. However, AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16d(2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements, states the rehabilitative requirements may be waived by the separation authority. Further, the separation authority's decision letter reflects he waived further rehabilitative requirements. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. They all recognize her good conduct; however, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. The applicant contends that she had good service. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of her service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended for her accomplishments. The applicant contends the event that caused her discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the characterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. 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 22 September 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, and post-service accomplishments (i.e., pursuit of undergraduate degree, volunteer work at VA) 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 narrative reason for separation 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 Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD/RE Code to: No Change f. 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 AR20160012831 1