1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 5 September 2018 b. Date Received: 10 August 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, believes the applicant was unjustly kicked out. The applicant states the unit had no grounds to give an Article 15 or any kind of UCMJ. The company did not wait until the hearing to even see if the applicant was guilty of the accused crime of driving under the influence of alcohol, without being breathalyzed or given roadside test. The applicant believes that the company acted in favoritism, instead of actually looking into the case and determining if the applicant was guilty of the charges. The applicant states, the current discharge has made the applicant unable to pursue an acceptable job for oneself and the family. The applicant is already eligible to receive all VA benefits, so the applicant's reasoning for wanting an upgrade is solely based on wanting to be able to pursue a future without the discharge hindering the applicant every time the applicant tries to progress in life. The applicant was rushed out of the Army in spite of the ETS date being a month away. An upgrade will hopefully clear the cloud that is over the applicant's head and enable the applicant to pursue a good career outside the military, without having the stigma of having a discharge other than honorable. The applicant is still entitled to school benefits and disability benefits, but the applicant cannot get a good career or good paying job with this type of discharge. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 17 July 2019, and by a 4-1 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: 27 September 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 16 August 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 17 April 2016, he physically controlled a passenger vehicle while drunk. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 16 August 2016 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 16 August 2016, the applicant conditionally waived consideration of his case before an administrative separation board, contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions) discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 13 September 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 4 May 2012 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 104 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 31B10, Military Police / 6 years, 7 months, 1 day d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 24 February 2010 - 3 May 2012 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska, SWA / Afghanistan (23 May 2011 - 21 May 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM, AAM-3, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, NATO MDL, OSR-2 g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Law Enforcement Report - 5TH Corrected Final, dated 25 April 2016, reflects an investigation revealed that the Fort Carson Police observed a 2015, red Dodge Charger, drive up and park on the roadway in the wrong direction. Further investigation revealed the applicant was also observed exiting the driver's seat of the vehicle and stumbling while walking on the sidewalk. Two United States District Court Violation Notices, both dated 17 April 2016, reflect the applicant was charged with: Parked Vehicle in Wrong Direction on Roadway; and, Drove Vehicle under the Influence of Alcohol. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 4 August 2016, for refusing to complete a lawfully requested test to measure the alcohol content of his breath or blood, where there was a reasonable belief that he was driving under the influence, and for resisting apprehension in violation of Article 95, UCMJ. On 17 April 2016, he was observed by Fort Carson Police parking his vehicle on the roadway in the wrong direction. Upon contact, the officer detected signs of impairment and intoxication. He also admitted to consuming alcohol prior to operating his vehicle. He then attempted to enter a residence, but was stopped and placed under arrest. He then proceeded to resist arrest. Finally, he refused to complete an alcohol content test. Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to ""Confined by Civil Authorities (CCA)" effective 2 June 2015; and, From "CCA" to "PDY," effective 4 June 2015. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 3 Days (CCA, 2 June 2015 - 4 June 2015) / Released from CCA. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 2 June 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: Occupational Problems. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214 and DD Form 293. 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. 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 12c, misconduct (serious offense). 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 and a narrative reason change. 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 narrative reason for the discharge should be changed. However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is "JKQ"." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends his unit discharged him for an alleged crime, before he was ever found guilty. However, 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 applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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 July 2019, and by a 4-1 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 AR20180011235 1