1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 10 January 2017 b. Date Received: 19 January 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, was an outstanding Soldier with many accomplishments and a promising military career, who had poor judgment, which has cost everything. The applicant has learned the lesson and is trying to continue on the right path. The applicant loved the Army and just made a stupid, childish mistake towards the end of contract. The applicant had always excelled in the military and strived to be the best at PT, weapons and overall Soldiering. The applicant had competed against the SMA D and won. The applicant had never failed a PT test and in fact, never scored below a 270 and never qualified below expert. The applicant had received numerous awards in the military because the applicant gave it everything, every day the applicant wore the uniform. The applicant did make a foolish mistake of getting behind the wheel after having a buzz and ended up a DUI, which ruined a career in the military. The applicant states, it was no one's fault but one's own and the applicant has learned the lesson and paid debt back to the courts and society. The applicant can never remove this tarnished image with military-peers. Since discharge, the applicant has held a full time job and attended college, which the applicant paid out of pocket and earned a 3 5 GPA. The applicant had a great career, but made a mistake at the end and understands the mistake and learned from it. The applicant requests the Board to allow the opportunity to continue to grow in college and show people that caliber of civilian that the military can produce. The applicant cannot afford college and needs the post 9/11 GI Bill. An upgrade would allow the applicant to redeem oneself in civilian life. The applicant hopes the Board understands the sincerity and regret. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 13 September 2019, 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 (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 21 April 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 29 May 2012 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / Bachelor's Degree / 113 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 89B10, Ammunition Specialist / 3 years, 10 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-3, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR, MOVSM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 17 December 2015, for driving under the influence of alcohol. On or about 13 November 2015, at approximately 0640 hours, a Geary County Sheriff's deputy stopped the applicant for speeding and failure to maintain his lane. An odor of an alcoholic beverage was detected coming from the applicant. Standard field sobriety tests revealed multiple signs of impairment. He refused a preliminary breath test. After submitting to a breath test using the lntoxilyzer 8000, he was found to have a breath alcohol content of .137 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. The officer arrested him for driving under the influence of alcohol. Military Police Report, dated 17 November 2015, reflects the applicant committed the following offenses: 13 November 2015: Refusal to Submit to A Preliminary Breath Test (Off Post) (State KSA 8-1012) (Founded) Driving under Influence of Alcohol or Drugs (Off Post) (State KSA 8-1567) (Founded) Improper Driving on Laned Roadway (Off Post) (State KSA 8-1522) (Founded) 18 October 2015: Assault (Article 128) [5C2]; Ogden ACP, Fort Riley, KS, 66442 Disorderly Conduct, Drunken (Article 134) [3R7]; Ogden ACP, Fort Riley, KS, 66442 i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; self-authored statement; Ordnance School Diploma; WLC Diploma; DA Form 1059; three award certificates; three certificates of achievement; five training certificates; training transcripts; photograph. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, he has held a full time job and attended college where he earned a 3 5 GPA. 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 available record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. However, the applicant's record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of Misconduct (Serious Offense), with a characterization of service of General (Under Honorable Conditions). Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant would have been protected throughout the separation process. Further, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. The applicant contends the event that caused his 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 applicant contends that he had good service. 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 Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization 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 applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. 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. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. Based on the available record, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 13 September 2019, 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 Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code 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 AR20170004958 1