1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 27 April 2018 b. Date Received: 29 May 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 there was insufficient evidence for separation at the time of discharge. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 13 November 2019, and by a 3-2 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: 5 September 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 15 July 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason: for being arrested and charged by the Lakewood Police Department for operating a vehicle while intoxicated on 16 May 2013. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 17 July 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 16 August 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 13 June 2011 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 108 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 31E10, Internment/ Resettlement Specialist / 2 years, 2 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 16 May 2013, which shows the applicant was the subject of investigation for driving while under the influence of alcohol. It should be noted that at the time of arrest the applicant had failed to stop for a red traffic light and upon approach by the Polk Officer, an order of an alcoholic beverage was detected on the applicant's breath. General Officer Letter of Reprimand, dated 7 August 2013, which show the applicant was reprimanded for driving under the influence of alcohol as a result of being apprehended by civilian law enforcement officials in Lakewood, Washington, for suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. Prior to his apprehension, he failed to stop for a red traffic light. Upon contact, an odor of alcohol was detected on his breath. He was administered a standardized field sobriety test which indicated impairment. He was arrested and transported to the Lakewood Police Department where an evidentiary breath test was administered and resulted in a finding of .151 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. Moreover, he also violated R.C.W. 46.61.503 because he was drinking alcohol underage. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 6 June 2013, which shows the applicant was diagnosed with an Axis I for alcohol abuse (Ms. X 11 April 2013). The applicant was evaluated by M. Addiction Assessment on 11 April 2013 and referred into ASAP programming. It was noted that the applicant was cleared from a behavioral perspective for any administrative action deemed appropriated by his command. There was no evidence of a mental disorder that was the direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct that led to the recommendation for administrative separation. The applicant could understand and participated in administrative proceedings, appreciated the difference between right and wrong, and met medical retention requirements. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and a memorandum from his Trial Defense Counsel at the time of discharge reference "Insufficient Evidence for Separation." 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. 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, in effect, that there was insufficient evidence for separation at the time of discharge. The applicant's contentions were noted; 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 there was insufficient evident for his separation at the time of discharge. Evidence of record shows the applicant was apprehended by civilian law enforcement officials in Lakewood, Washington, for suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. Prior to his apprehension, he failed to stop for a red traffic light. Upon contact, an odor of alcohol was detected on his breath. He was administered a standardized field sobriety test which indicated impairment. He was arrested and transported to the Lakewood Police Department where an evidentiary breath test was administered and resulted in a finding of .151 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. Moreover, he also violated R.C.W. 46.61.503 because he was drinking alcohol underage. 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 13 November 2019, and by a 3-2 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 AR20180007576 4