1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 24 January 2018 b. Date Received: 22 February 2019 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 the discharge was an injustice after having gone through a year of Soldiering post infraction. The applicant made a mistake that has caused many things, to include a career, family, marriage, and now it is limiting educational growth. The applicant understands there are consequences to action, the applicant left battle buddies, family members, and oneself down on one poorly made decision. The applicant served the country still in by signing the contract in which less than 1% of our citizens do upon enlistment. The applicant made a promise to those in the community the applicant would leave home and return a man of obligation and force in the community. The applicant wants to still be able to show the community success is achievable for anyone. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 20 May 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, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 24 January 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 8 December 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: on 25 December 2016, the applicant was stopped by Lakewood Police for operating a vehicle at the speed of 57 miles per hour in a 35 miles per hour zone, he was subsequently detained for Driving under the Influence, at which time he became combative and verbally abusive to the Police Officer. He was escorted to the Police Department to prove a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) sample, the result of which documented a level of 0.19-+ 0.16 BAC, additionally the blood sample showed presumptive positive for cannabinoids, with traces of THC reading of 7.2 ng/ml. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 11 December 2017 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 5 January 2018 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 21 April 2015 / 3 years, 16 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / 16 years (BS Degree) /111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 2 years, 9 months, 15 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 10 April 2015 to 20 April 2015 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Lakewood Police Department Incident Report, dated 25 December 2016, which indicates the applicant was the subject of investigation for speeding and DUI. Toxicology Laboratory Washington State Patrol Toxicology Test Report, dated 9 January 2017. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 9 November 2017, which noted that that applicant had been command referred to ASAP. The applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in administrative proceedings. From a behavioral health perspective, the applicant met the medical fitness standards for retention per AR 40-501 3-31 to 3-37 as there was no indication of a board able behavioral health disorder at that time. The applicant was cleared from a behavioral health perspective for administrative separation IAW AR 635-200 Several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and duty performance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 in lieu of DD Form 293; self-authored statement; Municipal Court documents from the Municipal Court for The City of Lakewood/University Place/Dupont/Town of Steilacoom County of Pierce, State of Washington; letter of support; document from his separation packet; enlisted record brief; letter from the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), dated 5 November 2018 reference performed community service work at the DAV; and Toxicology Laboratory Test Report, dated 9 January 2017. 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. Furthermore, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, the applicant compromised the trust and confidence placed in a Soldier. The applicant, as a Soldier, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's drug policies. By abusing illegal drugs, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge. 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 that his discharge was an injustice after having gone through a year of Soldiering post infraction. The applicant contends that he made a mistake that has caused him many things, to include his career, family, marriage, and now it is limiting his educational growth. He understands there are consequences to action, he let his battle buddies, family members, and himself down on one poorly made decision. He believes he served his country still in by signing the contract in which less than 1% of our citizens do upon enlistment. He made a promise to those in his community he would leave home and return a man of obligation and force in his community. He wants to still be able to show his community success is achievable for anyone. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, there is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged. In fact, the service record indicates the applicant committed several discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant's incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. 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 20 May 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 AR20190002512 1