1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 12 March 2018 b. Date Received: 29 March 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, the discharge characterization was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 18 months of otherwise honorable service with no other significant adverse actions. The reason for this separation was a valid one, yet the applicant believes in an attempt to procure any positive consequences possible. The applicant was only in the Army for a year and roughly six months and is disappointed in oneself. The applicant states, at the time of discharge, was young and most young people would say it was the cause for their mistake. The applicant was only 21 years of age, however, believes the applicant matured faster than others. The applicant still believed the applicant was "invincible" or would think it would not happen. What the applicant failed to realize was that there are seven billion people out there just like the applicant. The point is that as "mature" as the applicant thought the applicant was, statistically speaking, the applicant was still young and had plenty of mistakes to make and learn from in the process of growing up. The applicant states the service at that point was not profound in excellence. The applicant is a firm believer that one can always improve and better oneself and was eagerly trying to learn the MOS and more general knowledge. While in Advanced Individual Training (AIT), the applicant scored the highest GPA, averaging about a 94 percent. At the permanent duty station, the applicant tried to expand usefulness around the company and was selected to participate in a Combat Life Saver course. The applicant volunteered for the Combative I class and was accumulating promotion points every week through online training modules. The applicant does not like to boast, but believes that with a GT score of 119, the applicant was capable of more than what was accomplished. The applicant could have done more good than bad within the Army and continues to have that mindset for the future. The applicant has done good things for other Soldiers and civilians within the Army, which the applicant is proud of, such as helping morale, consoling battle buddies, technical issues, and personal issues. The military did not waste any effort on the applicant and has learned a great number of skills and grown as a person immensely. In turn, this has helped the applicant help others, far and wide, and it will aid in the future as well. 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 no BH diagnoses. The applicant does not have a service-connected rating from the VA. In summary, the applicant did 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 10 May 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: 24 August 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 17 May 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 9 April 2016, an Anchorage Police Department Officer was dispatched to the applicant's location after reports of him being slumped over the wheel of his vehicle. The vehicle had a flat passenger front tire and was blocking the number two lane of the southbound traffic. The vehicle was running with him asleep behind the wheel. He was arrested for driving under the influence. He provided a breath sample result in a .205 BRAC. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 18 May 2016 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 7 June 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 24 February 2015 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 119 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 25B10, IT Specialist / 1 year, 6 months, 1 day d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 16 February 2016, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (12 November 2015 and 25 January 2016). The punishment consisted of extra duty for 14 days. Anchorage Police Department, Police Report, dated 9 April 2016, reflects the applicant was arrested for: Operating Under the Influence. Law Enforcement Report - Initial Final, dated 18 April 2016, reflects: On 18 April 2016, investigation by OFC A (Civil Liaison) revealed that on 9 April 2016, at about 0311, Anchorage Police Officers were dispatched to 107 4 N Muldoon Rd for a report of a man slumped over the wheel of a vehicle. The vehicle had a flat passenger front tire and was blocking the number two lane of the southbound traffic. The vehicle was running and the driver later identified as applicant by his Ohio driver's license was asleep behind the wheel. After several attempts Officers were finally able to wake the applicant up. They had the applicant step out of the vehicle and noticed he had slurred speech, bloodshot water eyes, and a strong odor of alcohol coming from his person. OFC K (APO) conducted SFST's on the applicant, who performed poorly. The applicant was arrested for DUI and transported to the Anchorage Jail for processing. The applicant provided a breath sample of .205% BRAC and was remanded to the Anchorage Jail. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 18 May 2016, for driving under the influence of alcohol on 9 April 2016, as described in the Law Enforcement Report. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 22 April 2016, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Alcohol Abuse. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement. 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 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 the event that caused his discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends that he was very young and immature at the time. The record confirms the applicant's youth at the time of enlistment and an apparent lack of maturity. The record also shows the applicant's discrediting entries were incidents of a minor nature. While the applicant's misconduct and poor duty performance were a clear departure from acceptable Army standards, it appears the offenses were partially mitigated by youth and immaturity. The applicant contends that he had good service which included a combat tour. 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. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 10 May 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 AR20180006063 1