1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 15 August 2018 b. Date Received: 10 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge does not accurately reflect the positive achievements, awards and values the applicant had earned during the military career. The applicant recognizes there was a severe lapse in judgement in one singular, isolated incident, which was the only negative action the applicant had during service in the Army. After being charged with a DUI/DWI, the chain of command initiated separation paperwork, which was to be reviewed by the brigade commander. During the process, the applicant was also given a commander's referral to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) where the applicant met with a counselor and attended group sessions for eight weeks. The applicant states during the separation process, the applicant was given the opportunity to submit multiple character reference letters and a personal rebuttal letter to present to the brigade commander for favorable consideration. After considerable delegation, the brigade commander agreed to place the chapter packet on hold, giving the applicant a 12-month probationary period to prove the applicant would stay out of trouble and not commit the same offense again. The stipulations to this agreement included that if the applicant were to receive even one negative infraction then the separation packet would be reinstated and the applicant would be discharged. The applicant was then transferred to a sister battalion where the new company, began performing a multitude of training cycles, airborne operations, and various unit cohesion activities. At the end of that year, the applicant was given a one-week notice by the company first sergeant, that the applicant would be attending Basic Leaders Course (BLC). The applicant was not physically and or mentally prepared to attend this school. The applicant informed the entire chain of command that the applicant was unprepared to successfully attend this school and requested to not attend. Upon arriving at the BLC, the applicant was given a height/weight and tape examination, which the applicant did not pass and was given ten calendar days to meet the standards, or the applicant would be dropped from training. The applicant failed the examination by half of a percent and failed for the course. When the applicant returned to the unit, the applicant was informed that the battalion chain of command had heard of the failure and was deciding whether to use this failure as a negative infraction. The following week, the applicant was given notice that the applicant was in fact being separated from the Army. The applicant states, no one in the company chain of command agreed with the battalion/brigade commander's decision and believed the applicant was being wrongfully discharged without probable cause. The applicant did not behave in a manner that warranted the discharge and that the overall military career was not evaluated when considering the characterization of service. The applicant maintained a positive military bearing during the separation process and continued to uphold the high sense of professionalism the military had taught the applicant. An upgrade would allow the applicant to continue an education and provide a better future for oneself and the family. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 22 January 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. (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: 9 May 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 24 June 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 4 April 2015, he wrongfully operated a passenger vehicle while his blood alcohol content was over the legal limit. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 30 June 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 4 April 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 July 2011 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 116 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B1P, Infantryman / 4 years, 9 months, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Developmental Counseling Form, dated 4 April 2015, for driving under the influence (DUI) on post. Service School Academic Evaluation Report, dated 19 January 2016, reflects the applicant failed to achieve course standards. The applicant was dismissed from the course for failing to meet the established height and weight standards. He twice failed to achieve the standards of the Army Body Composition program for his age group. He failed to display the leadership abilities required at this level of NCOES. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 8 February 2016, for being released from BLC for failing the height and weight screening (19 January 2016).. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 28 May 2015, 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: Alcohol Use Disorder (per ASAP). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; DD Form 214; self-authored statement; three third party letters. 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. 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. 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 he did not behave in a manner that warranted the discharge and that his overall military career was not evaluated when considering his characterization of service. 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 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 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 third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. They all recognize his good performance while in the Army; however, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. 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 22 January 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable 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 AR20180013338 1