1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 22 March 2017 b. Date Received: 27 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 he was discharged for his sole misconduct after three and a half years of service. He contends he received the AGCM. He was convicted of one DWI and was processed for discharge. He witnessed other service members who committed the same offense or worse and received better treatment than he did. He believes he was made an example of. Since leaving the military he has been gainfully employed and a member of his community and a good citizen to the best of his abilities. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 29 June 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, a prior period of honorable service, post service accomplishments, 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, 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: 28 April 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 31 March 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason: physically controlling a vehicle while drunk with a .166 BAC on 31 January 2016 (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 6 April 2016 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 13 April 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 15 December 2014 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 113 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 3 years, 5 months, 24 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 5 November 2012 to 14 December 2014 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 31 January 2016 for submitting a breath sample on the intoxilyzer 9000 which resulted in a .166 BAC. Record of Trail by Summary Court-Martial, dated 11 February 2016, shows the applicant was charged with operating a vehicle, to wit: a passage car, while drunk. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-3, confinement for 5 days, and to perform 30 days for hard labor without confinement. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 17 March 2016, shows the applicant was diagnosed with an Axis I for alcohol abuse. It was noted that the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and could appreciated the difference between right and wrong. The applicant met the retention standard prescribed in AR 40-501, and there was no psychiatric disease or defect that warrant disposition through medical channels. The applicant was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriated by his command. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 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 he should have been retained on Active duty. The applicant seeks relief contending, that he was discharged for his sole misconduct after three and a half years of service. He contends he received the AGCM. He was convicted of one DWI and was processed for discharge. 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. However, although a single 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 a single 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. He contends he witnessed other service members who committed the same offense or worse and received better treatment than he did. He believes he was made an example of. However, the method in which another Soldier's case was handled is not relevant to the applicant's case. Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case. The applicant contends that since leaving the military he has been gainfully employed and a member of his community and a good citizen to the best of his abilities. The applicant is to be commended on his post-service accomplishment. 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 29 June 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, a prior period of honorable service, post service accomplishments, 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, 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 AR20170005716 4