1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 11 April 2017 b. Date Received: 1 May 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 pertinent part and in effect, was unjustly discharged weeks prior to serving out an enlistment contract because the Commander did not like the applicant. The applicant's discharge was based on a DUI, while fellow Soldiers with similar offenses were not discharged. The applicant had planned to return to school to better oneself. The applicant served three years and 12 weeks of a three-year, 16-week enlistment contract. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 16 January 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, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 24 March 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 13 February 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 31 December 2016, he operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, in violation of Article 111, UCMJ. On 30 August 2015, he failed to obey an order issued by CPT X. by wrongfully breaking a restriction, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. On 1 September 2015, he failed obey a lawful general regulation, to wit: AR 670-1, paragraph 3-2, dated 10 April 2015, by not having his haircut tapered, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. On 18 June 2015, he was found drunk on duty as an infantryman, in violation of Article 112, UCMJ. On 9 June 2015, he was derelict in the performance of his duties by failing to stay awake while on duty as a guard, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. On 15 September 2015, and 17 September 2015, without authority, he failed to go to his appointed places of duty, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: Waived, 21 February 2017 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 2 March 2017 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 7 January 2014 / 3 years, 16 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 90 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 11B10, Infantryman / 3 years, 2 months, 18 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / NA f. Awards and Decorations: AGCM; NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Negative counseling statements for violating the barracks policy; losing government property; failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on numerous occasions; reporting to duty while drunk; sleeping while on guard duty; failing to meet the Army standards by not having a proper haircut; failing to obey an order or regulation; violating his UCMJ punishment by breaking his restriction; driving under the influence of alcohol; and being flagged for continuous pattern of misconduct. MP Report and its associated documents, dated 17 January 2017, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both, possession of an open alcoholic beverage container in a motor vehicle. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 19 January 2017, indicates the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for an administrative separation or any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 11 April 2017. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided 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. 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 14-12c, 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 requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant's available record of service and the issues 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. By the serious incidents of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of his service. 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 discriminated by members of his chain of command; however, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends that other Soldiers with similar offenses were not dealt with in the same way. 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 he had plans to return to school but was discharged prior to completing his enlistment contract to prevent him from receiving his veterans' benefits. However, eligibility for veterans' 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 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 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 16 January 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 AR20170007703 1