1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 19 April 2018 b. Date Received: 24 April 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 pertinent part and in effect, the discharge was improper because the civilian conviction was used in the discharge proceedings. While awaiting the trial date, the applicant was discharged from the Army. On 3 October 2017, the applicant was found not guilty of the charge for driving while under the influence on 13 May 2017. Throughout the process of the case, the unit barred the applicant from reenlisting; received a GOMOR; was command-referred to the ASAP; and the driving privileges were revoked for a year. The applicant served for the country faithfully for almost six years. While there are no excuses for the actions, the applicant truly regrets jeopardizing life, family life, and career. The applicant will forever honor and cherish the Army Values instilled in oneself. An upgrade would provide a better future opportunities in life. 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 anxiety and depressed mood/disturbance of mixed emotional features/mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct, Alcohol Dependence, Child Abuse, Maltreatment Physical Abuse, Maltreatment Psychological Abuse, Martial Problem, Partner Relational Problem, and FAP Involvement. The applicant is 90% service-connected; 70% for Chronic Adjustment Disorder from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Sleep Apnea, Alcohol Dependence, and Other Specified Depressive Disorder. In summary, the applicant's BH diagnoses are not mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 6 May 2020, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnosis of OBHI). Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. (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: 10 November 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (Information according to the Commander's Report, dated 28 August 2017) (2) Basis for Separation: On 13 May 2017, the applicant operated a motor vehicle with a BAC of .116 percent. (3) Recommended Characterization: Unit commander recommended the applicant be retained. (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 20 September 2017 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 22 January 2015 / 4 years, 5 months (extended 17 months on 4 December 2015) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 94 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 74D20, Chemical Operations Specialist / 5 years, 4 months, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA (19 June 2012 to 21 January 2015) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii, SWA / Afghanistan (11 May 2015 to 5 May 2016) / Qatar (10 May 2015 to 5 May 2016) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-4; AGCM; NDSM; ACM-CS; GWOTSM-2; ASR; OSR-2; NATO MDL g. Performance Ratings: 1 May 2016 thru 12 March 2017, Met Standard h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand and its associated documents, dated 9 June 2017, indicates the applicant was reprimanded for driving under the influence of alcohol on 13 May 2017. Discharge Orders 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 19 April 2018; DD Form 214; District Court Complaint for Operating a Vehicle under the Influence of an Intoxicant; District Court Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order and Plea/ Judgment; and Administrative Driver's License Revocation Office Notice of Administrative Hearing Decision, dated 8 December 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 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. By the serious incidents of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and marred the quality of his service that ultimately caused his discharge from the Army. 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's numerous contentions were carefully considered. The applicant contends that his discharge was improper because his civilian conviction was used in the discharge proceedings, while on 3 October 2017, he was found not guilty of the charge for driving while under the influence. 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 his issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further sufficient evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incident pf misconduct, the Board can find that his accomplishments and his complete period of service were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. The applicant contends that an upgrade would provide him better future opportunities, perhaps the desire to have better job opportunities and the veterans' benefits. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Further, eligibility for veteran's 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 6 May 2020, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnosis of OBHI). Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a 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 AR20180006359 1