1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 9 September 2016 b. Date Received: 17 October 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, in 2013, he was stopped while driving near his base in Alaska, for what was described as a DUI, but, he was never charged for DUI. The final disposition of his case was "reckless driving." He was punished the next day in front of his company for a DUI and as he noted the final disposition was "reckless driving." He states he was to be out of the Army within a few weeks of the incident and he had expected to fulfill his Army service. Two days before his expiration term of service, his commander informed the applicant that he would not sign the applicant's discharge until all the court information was completed, but before being transferred to another base, he signed off with a general discharge. The final court papers were not final at the time and the applicant believes that he was punished three times, once in front of the company for a DUI, which was incorrect; second he was discharged with a general discharge; and, third he was discharged early. He respectfully requests an upgrade of his discharge in order to receive full benefits. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 5 January 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. (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: 3 May 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 3 February 2013, he drove under the influence of alcohol (DUI) with a BAC of .083. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 25 March 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 18 April 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 14 June 2010 / 3 years, 16 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 94 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 2 years, 10 months, 20 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska, SWA / Afghanistan (17 April 2011 - 17 April 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NATOMDL, ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: US Army Alaska, Serious Incident Report, dated 3 February 2013, reflects the applicant was arrested for Driving under the influence of Alcohol (DUI). Superior Court for the State of Alaska at Fairbanks, dated 3 February 2013, reflects the applicant was named the defendant and charged with DUI. The applicant was released on $1500 Appearance Bond. Superior Court for the State of Alaska at Fairbanks, Order and Conditions of Release, dated 5 February 2013, reflects the applicant had a pending charge of DUI - Alcohol or Substance. The applicant was ordered released on the condition that the applicant promised to appear at all scheduled hearings as required. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 27 March 2013, reflects the applicant was cleared for administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. 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: 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. 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 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 punished multiple times for the same offense. Once by the civilian court, and again by the discharge he received. However, Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that a Soldier may be separated when initially convicted by civil authorities, or when action is taken that is tantamount to a finding of guilty, if a punitive discharge authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts Martial or the sentence by civil authorities includes confinement for 6 months or more, without regard to suspension or probation. Additionally, the applicant contends that he was punished in front of his unit. This argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge. Finally, the applicant has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. The applicant contends his commander informed him that he would not sign his discharge papers prior to his court papers being final. The applicant contends the final disposition of his case was not a DUI, but rather reckless driving charge. 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 his overall service record. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow him access to full benefits. 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 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 5 January 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a e. Change SPD/RE Code to: Change SPD to JKN / No change to RE code f. Restore 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 AR20160018389 2