1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 4 September 2018 b. Date Received: 6 September 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 reentry eligibility (RE) code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, believes that one can make a mistake, but that everyone deserves a second chance. In today's society, it is often the one mistake that is ultimately judged by others, instead of all of the good things the person had accomplished. The applicant does not try to minimize the seriousness of the Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) offense while in the military, and the applicant's wish would be that the day had never happened, as the applicant had aspirations of becoming a career Soldier. The applicant cannot change the past, and the only thing the applicant can do, is continue to drive on, learn from the mistakes, and become the best person that the applicant possibly can. Since joining the Army, the applicant had always strived to be a valuable member of the unit. After 10 weeks of rigorous Basic Training, the applicant received a Certificate of Achievement for the Soldier of the cycle of training. The applicant also received many accommodations for hard work as a Human Resources Specialist. When the applicant was stationed at Fort Drum, the applicant was in charge of two battalion mailrooms, where the applicant received another Army Achievement Medal and was awarded an Army Good Conduct Medal. The applicant's hope is to show the Board members the kind of Soldier the applicant truly was and the kind of person the applicant is. The applicant believes that the Board will conclude that the service to the country was honorable as reflected in the service record. The applicant believes the discharge does not reflect the overall service and sacrifice the applicant made to the country. The applicant is not proud of the DWI received while in service, which was a poor decision and led to separation from the Army. The applicant worked hard to accomplish military goals and achievements, only to throw it all away in one night. The applicant knows one bad decision is not a good representation, but accepts responsibility for the incident. After the DWI, the applicant tried to show the chain of command that the applicant was still an asset to the unit and volunteered to speak to fellow Soldiers about the consequences of bad decisions. The applicant also attended the STOP DWI Victim Panel, which gives families affected by the tragedy of driving while intoxicated the opportunity to share their stories and show others the consequences of drinking and driving. The applicant attended "Prime for Life," a motivational prevention, intervention and pretreatment program specifically designed for people who might be making high-risk choices. The applicant states that despite the unit's decision to discharge the applicant from the Army, the applicant kept one's head up while trying to better oneself and be a positive influence to other Soldiers for the remainder of service. Since discharge, it has been a constant struggle for the applicant and family. The stigma of a less than honorable discharge is much greater than anticipated. The applicant tried applying for unemployment benefits to help the family, but was denied because the applicant did not complete the first full term of service. The applicant has had several job interviews, but was never hired due to a less than honorable discharge. The applicant has worked various jobs just to make ends meet, which has not been easy. The applicant attempted to reenlist in the Army, but was told to wait a minimum of two years because of the RE code and the characterization of discharge. The applicant has completed Occupational Safety and Health Administration 10, Certificate of Fitness for Fire Guard for Torch Operations and Construction Sites (F-60). One positive thing is, the applicant now has over one year of sobriety, which has made the applicant a much better person, husband, and father. The family is the single most important people in life, and the applicant will do whatever it takes to provide for their needs. The applicant wants to pursue a career in the medical field as a Dental Hygienist and has tried to use the Post 9/11 Educational Benefits, however, was told the applicant was not authorized to use them due to the general discharge. The applicant has dreams and aspirations and realizes the importance of a good education, which the applicant believes will lead the applicant down the road to success. An upgrade would allow use of the Post 9/11 benefits, which the applicant has earned. An education would provide the family with the financial stability they deserve, which the applicant takes very seriously. 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 mixed anxiety and depressed mood/with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct, Alcohol Abuse, Alcohol Dependence, and PTSD. The applicant is 80% service-connected; 50% for Chronic Adjustment 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 15 January 2020, 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: 15 February 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 5 February 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 27 August 2017, he was driving while under the influence of alcohol. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 12 December 2017 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 17 January 2018 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 29 October 2013 / 4 years, 27 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / GED / 101 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 42A10, Human Resources Specialist / 3 years, 10 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Desk Blotter, dated 27 August 2017, reflect the applicant was charged with: Driving in Wrong Direction on One-Way Street; Driving While Intoxicated; and, Improper / No Signal. The report noted the applicant's previous offenses: AWOL: Departed from Place of Duty (9 June 2014); and, Desertion (15 July 2014). Three Uniform Traffic Tickets, dated 27 August 2017, reflects the applicant was charged with the offense: Driving/Wrong Direction on One-Way Street; Driving While Intoxicated; and, Improper/No Signal. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 5 September 2017, for driving while an automobile while under the influence of alcohol on 27 August 2017. The Watertown Police observed his vehicle traveling the wrong way on a one-way street and failing to use a proper turn signal. The police officer initiated a traffic stop, identified the applicant as the operator, and detected an odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating from his breath. He failed a field sobriety test, and a breathalyzer test detected a blood alcohol content of .12 percent BAC. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 30 October 2017, 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. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 461 days (AWOL, 10 December 2013 - 8 June 2014; 9 June 2014 - 8 July 2014; 9 July 2014 - 16 March 2015) / NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; case separation documents; self-authored statement. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, he has worked various jobs and has completed Occupational Safety and Health Administration 10, Certificate of Fitness for Fire Guard for Torch Operations and Construction Sites (F-60). He has over one year of sobriety, which has made him a much better person, husband, and father. 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). 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 and a reentry eligibility (RE) code 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 desires to rejoin the Military Service. However, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3. There are no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or to the RE code. An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist. If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. The applicant contends that he had good service. 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 applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. However, 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 Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. 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 15 January 2020, 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 AR20180012809 1