1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 29 January 2018 b. Date Received: 2 February 2018 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 this upgrade would allow the applicant to further an advancement for jobs that the applicant is qualified for so that the applicant can better provide for the family. The applicant contends that the applicant does not think the entire situation was taken into consideration. The unit was in the middle of a Change of Command and the commander did not have a clear and honest view of who the applicant was as a medical Soldier. The discharge was based off of a short-term incident and not the applicant's history as a Soldier. A lot of the paperwork was rushed without proper counseling. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review at the time in the service record, the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA), and Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV), notes indicate diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder with anxious mood, Relational Problem, and Alcohol Abuse. The applicant is 10% service- connected from the VA. In summary, the applicant does not have a BH diagnosis that is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 17 April 2020, 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 18 September 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 8 June 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol on 3 December 2011; and Operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol on 26 February 2012 (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 3 July 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 3 September 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 11 March 2010 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / HS Graduate / 98 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 68S10, Preventive Medicine Specialist / 5 years, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 23 August 2007 to 10 March 2010 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM, GWTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Letter of Reprimand, dated 19 January 2012, for being apprehended by authorities in Richmond County, Georgia, for operating a motor vehicle while apparently under the influence of alcohol on 3 December 2011. A deputy of the Richmond County Sheriff's Officer responded to a motor vehicle accident in which the applicant had struck the vehicle of another deputy. The deputy administered a series of field sobriety tests (FTSs) which he failed. The deputy did detect an order of an alcoholic beverage emitting from him as he was administering the FSTs. The applicant was advised of the Georgia Implied Consent Notice and later administered a breathalyzer test that resulted in a reading of .215 percent Breath Alcohol Content (exceeding the legal limit of .08 grams per 210 liters). Military Police Report, dated 20 December 2011, which indicates the applicant was the subject of investigation for drunken driving-driving under the influence (alcohol). Notice of suspension of on-post driving privileges for intoxicated or impaired driving. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 24 May 2012, indicates the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and appreciated the difference between right and wrong. It was noted that the applicant showed no evidence of a disorder that would limit his potential to succeed in the military. Several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and duty performance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; certificate for award of the Army Commendation Medal and the Army Good Conduct Medal; several Certificates of Achievement; Military Course Completion Certificates; Commander's Certificated of Excellence; and Course Completion Certificates from ServSafe. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Several Course Completion Certificates from ServSafe. 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 14-12b addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 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. Furthermore, by violating the Army's policy on the use of alcohol, the applicant compromised the trust and confidence placed in a Soldier. The applicant, as a Soldier, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's alcohol policies. By abusing alcohol, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge. 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 does not think his entire situation was taken into consideration. His unit was in the middle of a Change of Command and the commander did not have a clear and honest view of who he was as a medical Soldier. His discharge was based off of a short-term incident and not his history as a Soldier. A lot of his paperwork was rushed without proper counseling. The applicant's contentions were noted; 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, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that his entire situation was not taken into consideration. In fact, the applicant's two incidents of driving under the influence of alcohol and numerous negative counseling statements justify a pattern of misconduct. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. It should be noted; by regulation, an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of a pattern of misconduct. 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 applicant expressed his desire for an upgrade of his discharge because this upgrade would allow him to further his advancement for jobs that he is qualified for so that he can better provide for his family. However, 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 17 April 2020, 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 AR20180004203 1