1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 17 October 2017 b. Date Received: 8 November 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, that the discharge states misconduct (serious offense) based on two alleged DUI arrest and a violation of a TPO. The applicant contends that the two DUI's where dismissed by the United States of America (JAG) and as far as the TPO violation, the applicant did not know she was in the car and only saw the man that had been sleeping in the applicant's house while deployed to Kuwait. It was a bad decision, regrets it and accepts responsibility for these actions. The applicant has moved on and three months after getting out of the military, landed a job with a Swiss mail processing company and is currently attending Community College in the Mechanical Engineering field, and has the first child on the way (a son). The applicant hopes to have submitted enough evidence to have the discharge upgraded to honorable. The applicant believes if the DUI's were taken away, there is only the violation of TPO in which the applicant was given an Article 15 and extra duty. Had the applicant been given an opportunity to fairly complete and prove innocence and the ability to move on from the mistakes, the applicant could have been a valuable leader in the Army and been able to lead and mentor Soldiers. The applicant could have let others know the pitfalls to succumbing to the emotions that came along with a bad divorce and drinking to numb that pain and let them know that you can overcome and move on with your career if you focus and move on. The applicant believes that upgrading the discharge will be a benefit not just to oneself but to America as a whole. The applicant would allow another American to compete for jobs that will help out what-ever communities that the applicant lives in as well as the family, it will allow the applicant to be closer to the son and show the son to believe in right and wrong and believe that you can overcome mistakes that you make and by working hard you can redeem yourself and be a role model in your community and for your kids. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 24 April 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: 8 October 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 15 August 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: on two occasions, being arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol; possession of a loaded unregistered weapon on post; violating a protective order; and driving on post while his on-post driving privileges were suspended. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 2 September 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 27 September 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 October 2009 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 94F10, COMP-DETECT-SYS REP / 5 years, 1 month d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA, Korea / Kuwait (11 June 2012 to 1 March 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NOPDR, OSR-2 g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 20 May 2013, which shows the applicant was the subject of investigation for assault consummated by battery and violation of a civilian family violence protective order. Military Police Report, dated 20 December 2013, which shows the applicant was the subject of investigation for driving under the influence (alcohol), leaving the scene of an accident, traffic accident without injuries/damage to private property, false official statement, failure to obey order or regulation (failure to register firearm), failure to obey order or regulation (improper transport of firearm), and reckless driving. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 8 April 2014, which shows the applicant was reprimanded for being apprehended by Fort Benning Military Police for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol on 19 December 2013. The officer responded to a traffic accident involving the applicant's vehicle and noticed he smelled of alcohol. The applicant was administered standardized field sobriety test, which he failed. A breathalyzer test resulting in a reading of 0.134 grams per 210 liters breathe alcohol content, exceeding the legal limit of .08g/210L. He was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. In accordance with Army Regulation 27-10, paragraph 3-3b, and Army Regulation 190-5, paragraph 2-7a (3), he was reprimanded for his lack of judgment. Military Police Report, dated 13 July 2014, which shows the applicant was the subject of investigation for driving under the influence (alcohol)(refusal), laying drag / driving a zigzag, driving while post driving privileges suspended, and defective / not headlights. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 3 September 2014, which shows the applicant was reprimanded for being apprehended by Fort Benning Military Police for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol on 13 July 2013. The officer stopped the applicant for driving without headlights on after dark and driving in a zigzag. He noticed the applicant smelled of alcohol. The officer administered a standardized field sobriety test, which he failed. He refused to submit a breath sample to measure his alcohol content. He was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. In accordance with Army Regulation 27-10, paragraph 3-3b, and Army Regulation 190-5, paragraph 2-7a(2), he was reprimanded for his lack of judgment. Counsel statements for several acts of misconduct and initiation of separation action. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 28 July 2014, shows the applicant was diagnosed with an Axis I for alcohol dependence. It was noted that the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and appreciated the difference between right and wrong. The applicant was mentally responsible. He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriated by his command. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; release of information form; self-authored statement; several letters of character reference / recommendation; several court-documents from the United States District Court of Middle District of Georgia directing dismissal, fines, and probation; and copy of email to The Army Review Boards Agency Congressional Liaison and Inquiries. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends that he is currently attending Community College in the Mechanical Engineering field and that he has continued to stay employed. 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 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 the two DUI's against him where dismissed by the United States of America (JAG) and as far as the TPO violation, he did not know she was in the car, he only saw the man that had been sleeping in his house while he was deployed to Kuwait. It was a bad decision, he regret it and accepts responsibility for his actions. He has moved on, three months after getting out of the military he landed a job with a Swiss mail processing company and is currently attending Community College in the Mechanical Engineering field, and has his first child on the way (a son). He hope he has submitted enough evidence to have his discharge upgraded to honorable. He believes if his DUI's were taken away, there is only the violation of TPO in which he was given an Article 15 and extra duty. Had he been given an opportunity to fairly complete and prove his innocence and the ability to move on from his mistakes he could have been a valuable leader in the Army and been able to lead and mentor Soldiers. He could have let others know the pitfalls to succumbing to the emotions that came along with a bad divorce and drinking to numb that pain and let them know that you can overcome and move on with your career if you focus and move on. He believes that upgrading his discharge will be a benefit not just to him but to America as a whole. He would allow another American to compete for jobs that will help out what-ever communities that he lives in as well as his family, it will allow him to be closer to his son and show him to believe in right and wrong and believe that you can overcome mistakes that you make and by working hard you can redeem yourself and be a role model in your community and for your kids The applicant's post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application and the applicant is to be commended on his accomplishments. However, although the DUI charges were dismissed against the applicant by the United States District Court Middle District of Georgia. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that a Soldier may be separated when initially convicted by civil authorities, or when action is taken that is tantamount to a finding of guilty, if a punitive discharge authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts Martial. Evidence of record shows the applicant was apprehended twice by Fort Benning Military Police for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol on 13 July 2013 and 19 December 2013. Both times the officer responding noticed he smelled of alcohol. Also the applicant was in possession of a loaded unregistered weapon on post; violating a protective order; and driving on post while his on-post driving privileges were suspended. 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. Additionally, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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 24 April 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 AR20170017264 2