1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 12 February 2017 b. Date Received: 7 March 2017 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, that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in over 73 months of service with no other adverse action. He contends he served in combat with valor for more than 20 months total and made the Warrior Leader Course's Commandant's List. His physical training scores were always towards the top of my unit, height and weight were well within standards at all times, and marksmanship scores were towards the top of my unit also. Too him, he was what the U.S. ARMY was looking for in all of its Soldiers and that is what he strived for. He took great pride in wearing the uniform., he was not a Soldier that hid behind a profile that was not needed, missed work, caused problems for his superiors, or tried to do only the bare minimum. He made his share of mistakes, as every Soldier and Officer does, but he persevered and built on every mistake. He completely understands that the consequence of his action was that he be separated from the military that he was proud to be in. However, with the classification of his discharge, it says that he served generally under honorable conditions and not the way that he actually served which was valorously, respectfully, and the way that is expected when you raised your right hand and took the oath. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review at the time in the service record, the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA), and Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) there was a nexus between a behavioral health or medical condition and the misconduct, which led to the applicant's separation from the Army. The Applicant's diagnosis of PTSD and mental status at the time of the misconduct mitigate the offense. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 7 September 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post- service diagnosis of PTSD), and a prior period of honorable service. Therefore, 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, paragraph 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, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 24 September 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 31 July 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason: for driving under the influence and receiving a DUI. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 24 August 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: None (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 7 September 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 October 2010 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 94 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 15N10, Avionic Mechanic / 6 years, 1 month, 24 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 1 August 2006 to 30 September 2010 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Iraq (5 September 2007 to 6 August 2008 and 13 March 2010 to 10 October 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-3, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS-2, NOPDR, ASR, OSR-2 g. Performance Ratings: 1 November 2011 to 6 June 2012, Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 28 April 2012, which shows the applicant was the subject of investigation for drunken driving, speeding, and refusal to submit to a preliminary breath test. Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment, dated 3 May 2012, shows the applicant was command referred as a result of speeding, driving under the influence, being apprehended for refusing a breath test, and a BAC o .084 (DUI). General Officer Letter of Reprimand, dated 29 May 2012, which shows the applicant was reprimanded for driving under the influence of alcohol on 28 April 2012 with a blood alcohol content of .084. FG Article 15, dated 6 June 2012, for operating a vehicle, to wit: a passenger car, while the alcohol concentration in his breath, exceeded .08 grams of alcohol per 210 liter of breath, which was the limit under Kansas Statutes Annotated 8-1567 on 28 April 2012. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-4, forfeiture of $400 pay per month for two months; 45 days extra duty and restriction, and written reprimand. Counseling statement for acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 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 14-12c 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 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 she should have been retained on Active duty. The applicant seeks relief contending that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in over 73 months of service with no other adverse action. He contends he served in combat with valor for more than 20 months total and made the Warrior Leader Course's Commandant's List. His physical training scores were always towards the top of my unit, height and weight were well within standards at all times, and marksmanship scores were towards the top of my unit also. Too him, he was what the U.S. ARMY was looking for in all of its Soldiers and that is what he strived for. He took great pride in wearing the uniform., he was not a Soldier that hid behind a profile that was not needed, missed work, caused problems for his superiors, or tried to do only the bare minimum. He made his share of mistakes, as every Soldier and Officer does, but he persevered and built on every mistake. He completely understands that the consequence of his action was that he be separated from the military that he was proud to be in. However, with the classification of his discharge, it says that he served generally under honorable conditions and not the way that he actually served which was valorously, respectfully, and the way that is expected when you raised your right hand and took the oath. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, although an isolated incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by an isolated incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. 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 and the applicant is to be commended on his accomplishments. It should be noted by regulation, an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of misconduct (serious offense). 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 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 7 September 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD), and a prior period of honorable service. Therefore, 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, paragraph 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, paragraph 14-12a e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JKN / 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 AR20170003311 1