1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 2 October 2019 b. Date Received: 4 October 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that his discharge characterization does not exemplify his career in the military and the way his case was handled was not just or the way others were handled just like his. The applicant contends he submitted a packet with this with more information. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 4 November 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: 4 December 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 16 August 2018 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for having been identified as a drug abuser because between on or about 14 January 2018 and 11 February 2018, he was charged with two Driving Under the Influence offenses. The Basis for Separation was later change to: for Misconduct (Serious Offense) because between on or about 14 January 2018 and on or about 11 February 2018, he was charged with two Driving Under the Influence offenses. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 4 September 2018 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 8 November 2018 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 May 2014 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 115 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B1V, Infantryman / 4 years, 6 months, 8 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, AGCM, NDSM, GWTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Incident Reports, dated 14 January 2018 and 11 February 2018, showing the applicant was the subject of investigation for driving under the influence. Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment, dated 24 January 2018, shows the applicant was a referral for investigation/apprehension as a result of suspicion of driving under the influence on 14 January 2018. It was noted that the applicant verbalized an understanding he was required to maintain abstinence. General Officer Administrative Reprimand, dated 28 March 2018, for his reprehensible conduct of driving under the influence of alcohol two times, in Tennessee, causing tow alcohol-related offenses in less than a month's time. According to the Clarksville Police Department Incident Report, on 14 January 2018 the applicant refused to take a lawfully requested test to measure the alcohol content of his breath, in violation of the Tennessee implied consent law. On 11 February 2018, an officer responded to a complaint of a vehicle driving erratically, almost striking several vehicles. At the traffic stop, the officer observed the applicant was unsteady on his feet, had slurred speech, and had an odor of alcohol on his person. It was totally unacceptable for him a United States Army Soldier to act in such an irresponsible manner one time let alone two. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 9 July 2018, which indicate the applicant could understand and participated in administrative proceedings and appreciated the difference between right and wrong. The applicant was cleared from a behavioral health perspective for chapter separation. Notice of Proposed Amendment to Separation under AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, Misconduct (Serious Offense) i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with his 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 on the use of alcohol, 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 alcohol policies. By abusing alcohol, 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 characterization does not exemplify his career in the military and the way his case was handled was not just or the way others were handled just like his. The applicant contends he submitted a packet with this with more information. The applicant's contentions were noted; 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 this issue. 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 applicant's two incidents of misconduct justify a pattern of misconduct. The applicant's statement alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. Also; 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. It should be noted, by regulation, an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of misconduct (serious offense). It appears the applicant's generally good record of service was the basis for his receiving a GD instead of the normal UOTHC discharge. 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 4 November 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 / 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 AR20190014818 3