1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 27 March 2018 b. Date Received: 2 April 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. The Board would consider the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and to change the narrative reason for discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, having served more than 19 years of creditable service, the process of the discharge requiring final determination by the Headquarters, Department of the Army, according to AR 635-200, paragraph 2-12c(2), never occurred. Therefore, the applicant is requesting to change the narrative reason for discharge to retirement, effective at the point the applicant would have reached 20 years of creditable service. 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 while on active duty. The applicant is 50% service-connected for Major Depressive Disorder from the VA. 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 November 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, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 23 January 2008 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 22 October 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: The applicant received three driving under the influence (DUI) offenses on 13 February 2004, 21 September 2004, and most recently 21 August 2007. Specific circumstances exist that the offenses would warrant a punitive discharge for the same or closely related offenses under the Manual for Courts-Martial. The applicant was also convicted of obstructing an officer in Monroe County on 21 May 2007. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 28 November 2007 (5) Administrative Separation Board: 28 November 2007, conditionally waived, contingent upon receiving no less than a general (under honorable conditions) discharge (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 28 November 2007 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (The separation authority accepted the request for conditional waiver.) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Current Service Under Review: 3 June 1998 / 3 years pursuant to AGR Orders, dated 18 May 1998; amended by Orders, dated 30 March 2001, to 4 years, 11 months, 2 days; amended by Orders, dated 28 April 2003, to 5 years, 2 months, 2 days; and three assignment Orders, dated 7 June 2002, 17 October 2003, and 21 June 2006. b. Age at Service Under Review / Education / GT Score: 36 / 14 years / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 13B30, Cannon Crewmember / 20 years, 8 months, 18 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA (21 January 1985 to 22 January 1987) / HD RA (23 January 1987 to 22 January 1993) / HD BREAK in SERVICE (23 January 1993 to 3 May 1995) USAR (4 May 1995 to 4 May 2003) / HD USAR (5 May 2003 (Indefinite-Continuous Service) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM; AAM-8; AGCM-4; NDSM-2; GWOTSM; NCOPDR-2; ASR; AFRM; OSR-2; g. Performance Ratings: 12 NCOERs rendered during period of service under current review, evaluated as "AB" for "Among the Best" and "FC" for "Fully Capable": July 1998 thru July 1999, AB August 1999 thru July 2000, FC August 2000 thru March 2001, FC April 2001 thru March 2002, AB April 2002 thru June 2002, RFC, FC July 2002 thru June 2003, FC July 2003 thru December 2003, FC January 2004 thru June 2004, FC July 2004 thru April 2005, FC May 2005 thru November 2005, FC 1 December 2005 thru 30 November 2006, FC 1 December 2006 thru 25 October 2007, Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 20 May 1992, for violating a lawful general regulation on 9 May 1992, wrongfully using reproachful words toward and NCO on 9 May 1992, and disorderly conduct on 9 May 1992. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4, and 3 days of extra duty and restriction. Counseling statements for beginning a 10-week alcohol rehabilitation program; keeping his supervisors informed of all his appointments and sessions; signing an official notification for revocation of installation driving privileges; having two GOMORs pending; initiation of separation proceedings with 16 and a half years of active federal service; being arrested on 7 February 2004 for operating a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant and operating a vehicle without a valid license; being arrested on 13 March 2004, for operating a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, operating a vehicle after suspension of license, and failing to wear a seatbelt; and on 29 December 2005, being arrested, held, and released from the Monroe County Police station for operating a vehicle with a revoked license. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 31 January 2005, indicates the applicant was reprimanded for driving under the influence of alcohol on 7 February 2004. (Includes a civilian alcoholic influence report and an incident report, dated 7 February 2004.) General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated (illegible date), indicates the applicant was reprimanded for driving under the influence of alcohol on 13 March 2004. (Includes a report on Charge(s)/Sentence(s) report, dated 6 May 2004.) MP Report, dated 13 February 2004, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for being held in civil custody (off post), being charged with operating a vehicle without a valid license and operating a vehicle while intoxicated on 13 February 2004. MP Report, dated 21 September 2004, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for being held in civil custody (off post) for being arrested on 3 March 2004, for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, operating a vehicle after suspension of license, and failing to wear seatbelt. Memorandum for the Commanding General, dated 4 April 2005, rendered by the servicing Staff Judge Advocate, provides the applicant's chain of command recommendations for filing determination regarding the applicant's two GOMORs, for DUI incidents of 7 February 2004, and 13 March 2004. Civilian Circuit Court, Judgment of Conviction and Sentence to the County Jail/Fine/Forfeiture, dated 24 May 2007, indicates the applicant, being found guilty of "Resisting or Obstructing an Officer," received a sentence of 30 days of county jail and obligated court cost of $88. MP Report, dated 21 August 2007, with civilian Offense/Incident Report, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for being held in civil custody (off post) for being arrested on 18 August 2007, for a third offense of operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation, dated 30 October 2007, indicates an "AXIS I" diagnosis of "Alcohol Dependence (In-Partial Remission)," and the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: Four days (NIF: 29 June 2006 to 2 July 2006) / NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 27 March 2018; unit commander's notification memorandum, dated 22 October 2007, with acknowledgment of receipt and assumption of command memorandum; commander's report memorandum, dated 28 November 2007; separation authority's decision memorandum, dated 28 November 2007; separation Orders; DD Form 214; and extract copy of page 30 of AR 635- 200, dated 6 June 2005. 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 did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed, in pertinent part, by DoDI 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. Accordingly, the applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and to change the narrative reason for his discharge. 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. The applicant by violating the Army's policy not to abuse alcohol, compromised the special trust and confidence placed in an NCO. The applicant, as an NCO, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's alcohol abuse policies. By abusing alcohol, 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 in the US Army Reserve. The applicant contends the justifying reasons for his request were due to the requirement of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, paragraph 2-12e(2); wherein, Headquarters, Department of the Army, would make a final determination on his discharge proceedings, which did not occur. 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 and to change the narrative reason for his discharge. Moreover, the applicant requested a conditional waiver of a hearing before an administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving no less than a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The separation authority accepted the applicant's request for conditional waiver and granted him a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. Paragraph 2-5d, AR 635-200, states that "Waivers of the board hearing will not be accepted in the cases of Soldiers who have completed 18 years or more active Federal service." In the applicant's case, that paragraph is inapplicable, because at the time the applicant was notified of his separation proceedings and even, upon his discharge, he had less than 18 years of active Federal service. Further, paragraph 2-12c(2), AR 635-200, referred to by the applicant, is also inapplicable to the applicant's case, because there was no board action. Insofar as the applicant's request to change the narrative reason for his discharge to retirement, the narrative reason for his separation is governed by specific directives and as approved by the separation authority. The narrative reason specified by AR 635-5-1 for a discharge under Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is JKQ. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. Based on the available record, 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 November 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 AR20180006470 1