1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 2 June 2017 b. Date Received: 21 June 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 wrongfully discharged because the justification in the chapter packet is based on the commander's opinion, although the applicant did get into situations as a private; the applicant did a full turn around. Additionally, the applicant's name came up for a Driving Under the Influence (DUI) charge off post, but before the DUI charge, the applicant was scheduled to PCS to Fort Hood, Texas. Upon returning with paper work proving that the applicant was not guilty of the charge, the flag was never lifted from the Enlisted Record Brief. Because of this, the command was allowed to separate the applicant from the service by using a previous Article 15 for an incident occurring on 5 April 2014. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 13 August 2018, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, a prior period of honorable service, and post-service accomplishments. Therefore, the board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, blocks 25, 26, and 28, contain erroneous entries. The Board directed the following administrative corrections and reissue of the applicant's DD Form 214, as approved by the separation authority: a. block 25, separation authority changed to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, b. block 26, separation code changed to JKN, c. block 28, narrative reason for separation changed to Misconduct (Minor Infractions). (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: 8 January 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: On 10 September 2014, the applicant acknowledged notification of intent to separate him under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, Pattern of Misconduct. (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant's service record is void of the notification of intent to separate memorandum addressed to the applicant indicating the specific reasons for the separation action and the recommended characterization of service. Memorandum for Record, dated 9 November 2015, wherein the applicant's company commander addressed his justification for separation. The applicant's commander summarized the applicant's behavior and noted the following misconduct: 23 March 2015: Arrested for speeding 17 MPH over the speed limit, failed Field Sobriety Tests, and recording a .087 on the Intoxilyzer Alcohol Analyzer. 5 April 2014: Violation of Article 192, UCMJ for willfully and wrongfully causing damage to private property by throwing a trash bag onto the windshield of a POV and damaging the windshield. The applicant was under the influence of alcohol at the time and of the incident. 27 December 2013: Violation of Article 134, UCMJ for Drunk and Disorderly Conduct. The applicant was in the barracks when the MPs arrived to question witnesses to a vehicle accident. He became belligerent and disrespectful to the MPs leading to his detainment. 28 August 2013: Violation of USC for Tampering with a Fire Alarm. The applicant was under the influence of alcohol and discharged a fire extinguisher in the direction of a fellow Soldier inside of building 1482, causing the fire alarm to alert the Fire Department and Police. (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: Memorandum, dated 22 October 2015, reflects the applicant's defense counsel notified the applicant's battalion commander that the applicant had been notified of initiation of separation under the provisions of Chapter 14-12c, AR 635-200. The basis for separation outlined one offense which would qualify for a "serious offense" and that was the charge of driving under the influence. Regarding that offense, the applicant was tried in Hardin Circuit Court and found not guilty. Counsel stated the packet was, therefore, legally insufficient and returned to the command without election being made by the applicant. The applicant did not waive any of his rights concerning this Chapter 14 packet; however, counsel could not properly advise him or complete the rights election unless and until the proper documentation in accordance with the regulation is provided to support the separation. Memorandum, dated 24 November 2015, reflects the applicant attended his appointment with the Fort Knox Trial Defense Service concerning his Chapter 14-12c action. The applicant expressed his desire to submit rebuttal matters. Additionally, after initial review of the packet the defense counsel recognized potential issues with the basis for separation for which a follow- up was necessary after government counsel responds to the defense counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 17 December 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 5 December 2013 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / HS Graduate / 90 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 12C10, Bridge Crewmember / 4 years, 8 months, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 3 May 2011 - 4 December 2013 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 5 April 2014, reflects the applicant was apprehended for Wrongful Damage of Private Property (Off Post). General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 9 April 2015, for driving under the influence of alcohol. On 21 March 2015, he was pulled over for driving 17 miles in excess of the posted speed limit. Upon contact, the officer observed that he had slurred speech and also detected the odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath. The officer administered him a Field Sobriety Test and observed four instances of impairment. He then provided a breath sample which revealed his blood alcohol concentration to be 0.087, which is above the legal limit. CG Article 15, dated 22 May 2014, willfully and wrongfully damage by through a trash bag, a Ford fusion windshield, the amount of said damage being in the sum of less than $500 (5 May 2014). The form did not reflect any imposed punishment. Memorandum, dated 1 September 2015, Reinstatement of Installation Driving Privileges, reflects Military Police information revealed that on 21 March 2015, the applicant was apprehended and cited for Driving Under the Influence which resulted in the suspension of your on post driving privileges for a period of 12 months. On 28 August 2015, the applicant appeared in the Hardin County District Court where he was found not guilty of the Driving Under the Influence charge. A check through the National Crime Information Center revealed that his operator's license was valid with no suspensions. Therefore, his suspension letter from the Provost Marshal's Office is rescinded, effective 1 September 2015. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 7 October 2015, 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: The applicant's medical record, dated 7 April 2015, reflects the applicant had been treated for Alcohol Abuse. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application, with all allied documents listed in the supporting documentation information section 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. National Defense Authorization Act 2017 provided specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) in connection with combat or sexual assault or sexual harassment as a basis for discharge review. Further, it provided that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; as a basis for the discharge. In August 2017, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provided further clarifying guidance to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. 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 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 he was wrongfully discharged because the justification in the chapter packet is based on the commander's opinion. 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 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 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. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): None b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): None c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): None 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 13 August 2018, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, a prior period of honorable service, and post- service accomplishments. Therefore, the board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, blocks 25, 26, and 28, contain erroneous entries. The Board directed the following administrative corrections and reissue of the applicant's DD Form 214, as approved by the separation authority: a. block 25, separation authority changed to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, b. block 26, separation code changed to JKN, c. block 28, narrative reason for separation changed to Misconduct (Minor Infractions). 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a d. Change Authority to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) 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 AR20170009621 6