1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 5 July 2018 b. Date Received: 9 July 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, the discharge was inequitable, because it was based on a one-time offense in 33 months of service. One lieutenant, who received a DUI offense, was not discharged. The arbitrary and capricious delay on the hearing of the punishment was from 11 February 2017 to 10 July 2017. During that period, a good friend, SPC T.J.V. passed away on 23 March 2017, due to an alcohol-related vehicle accident. Thereafter, a new policy went into effect, which directed that all DUI offense would cause for an involuntary discharge. The discharge caused the applicant to be ashamed and depressed when asked about military service, including being denied numerous employment opportunities. The applicant learned a lesson, but will never be able to escape the past. The applicant loved serving the country. 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 PTSD due to MST from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with PTSD, Other Specified Depressive Disorder, Alcohol Use Disorder, and Unspecified Cannabis Related Disorder. In summary, the applicant has a BH diagnosis that is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 8 January 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD and MST). Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF, and a change to the reentry eligibility (RE) code to 1. (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: 28 September 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 31 July 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 11 February 2017, the applicant was stopped by the German Police for a routine vehicle check. Upon contact with the applicant, the odor of alcohol was detected. A preliminary breath alcohol test revealed a ".111g/100mil BAC." Thereafter, the applicant was transported by the German Police to the "Amberg" hospital for a blood alcohol test, which revealed his BAC was ".87g/100ml." The applicant was driving a passenger vehicle while drunk. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: Waived, 1 August 2017 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 16 August 2017 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 September 2014 / 3 years, 18 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / 14 years / 87 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 3 years, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM; NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand and its associated documents, dated 3 May 2017, indicates the applicant was reprimanded for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated on 11 February 2017, in Germany. Counseling statement for being informed of the initiation of an involuntary separation proceedings due to commission of a serious offense. Commander's Report memorandum, dated 1 August 2017, indicates the applicant received a FG Article 15 on 8 June 2017 (NIF), for physically controlling a passenger vehicle while drunk on 11 February 2017. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $799 pay per month for two months (suspended), and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 12 July 2017, cleared the applicant for chapter action as deemed appropriate by his chain of command. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 5 July 2018, with applicant-authored statement; two character reference/supporting statements; sworn statement, dated 11 February 2017; Prime for Life certificate, dated 4-5 April 2017; Patient Progress Report (PPR), dated 23 August 2017; counseling statement, dated 19 July 2017; Law Enforcement Report, dated 17 April 2017; and BAC Blood Values list. 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. The applicant, as a Soldier, 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 on Active Duty. The applicant contends the discharge was unjust because the incident that led to his discharge was a one-time offense, and there was an arbitrary and capricious delay in the hearing of his punishment. 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. Insofar as the applicant's contentions that the incident that caused his discharge was the only one in his entire Army career, although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant contends that other Soldiers with similar offenses were not discharged or allowed to stay in the Army. However, the method in which another Soldier's case was handled is not relevant to the applicant's case. Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case. The applicant contends his current discharge has denied him numerous employment opportunities. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. The applicant contends he loved serving his country, perhaps an expressed desire 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 third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's character and performance. However, the persons providing the character reference and supporting statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. 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 8 January 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of PTSD and MST). Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF, and a change to the reentry eligibility (RE) code to 1. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Secretarial Authority d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3 e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JFF / RE-1 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 AR20180013256 1