1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 14 May 2020 b. Date Received: 22 May 2020 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is honorable. The applicant requests a reentry code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, a reentry code change would provide the opportunity to serve the country again and give back to the organization. The applicant loved serving in the US Army. The applicant feels having been judged harshly for the mistake made and accepts responsibility. The record prior to the one incident was clean and the applicant had excelled within the military. Since the discharge, the applicant held many positions with multiple corporations, as well as attaining a bachelor’s degree. b. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 14 April 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board’s decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2B / JNC / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 4 May 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 23 December 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2b for conduct unbecoming of an officer and for receiving adverse information filed in the Army Military Human Resource Record in accordance with AR 600-37, due to the following reasons: Derogatory activity which resulted in a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 24 July 2014, which was filed in the Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). The applicant was reprimanded for driving under the influence of alcohol in Fairbanks, Alaska, and Conduct unbecoming an officer, AR 600-8-24 para 4-2b(8), specifically the conduct on 16 February 2014 as detailed above. (3) Legal Consultation Date: 23 December 2014 (4) Board of Inquiry (BOI): NIF (5) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 6 February 2015, the GOSCA recommended disapproval of the applicant’s request for retention and recommended the applicant be involuntarily eliminated from service / Honorable (6) DA Board of Review for Eliminations: On 20 March 2015, the Army Board of Review for Eliminations considered the GOSCA’s request to involuntary separate the applicant for unacceptable conduct in accordance with AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b. (7) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 15 April 2015 / Honorable 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 23 May 2012 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment / Education: 27 / two-year college c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: WO1 / 152D0 A4, OH-58D Scout Pilot / 12 years, 3 months, 14 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 21 January 2003 – 22 May 2012 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (11 November 2004 – 20 October 2005); Afghanistan (5 December 2008 – 4 December 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-2CS, MSM, ARCOM-5, AAM, JMUA, MUC-2, VUA, AGCM-3, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-2, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand and its allied investigative documents, dated 24 July 2014, reflects the applicant was driving under the influence of alcohol in Fairbanks, Alaska. After being stopped for operating a vehicle traveling in the wrong direction on a highway on 16 February 2014, the applicant refused to conduct Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, but provided a breath sample resulting in a Breath Alcohol Content of .196 percent. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; third-party memorandum; and Excelsior College transcript. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states having held many employment positions with multiple corporations, as well as, completing college and attaining a bachelor’s degree. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides 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), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides 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, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities’ last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification 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. (2) 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. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board) sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember’s date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. (1) Paragraph 1-23 provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 1-23a, states an officer will normally receive an honorable characterization of service when the quality of the officer’s service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty, or the final revocation of a security clearance under DODI 5200.02 and AR 380-67 for reasons that do not involve acts of misconduct for an officer. (3) Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty. (4) Paragraph 4-2b, prescribes for the elimination of an officer for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interests of national security. (5) Paragraph 4-20a (previously 4-24a), states an officer identified for elimination may, at any time during or prior to the final action in the elimination case elect one of the following options: (1) Submit a resignation in lieu of elimination; (2) request a discharge in lieu of elimination; and (3) Apply for retirement in lieu of elimination if otherwise eligible. e. 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 “JNC” as the appropriate code to assign commissioned officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b, unacceptable conduct. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests a reentry code change. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change because of a desire to rejoin the Military Service. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. However, Army Regulation 635-8 (Separation Processing and Documents), paragraph 5-6, provides rules for completing the DD Form 214. Paragraph 5-6aa prescribing entry in Block 27, Reentry Code, states in pertinent part, while AR 601–210 determines reentry eligibility and provides regulatory guidance on reentry codes, the codes are not applicable to officers. The applicant contends being judged harshly for the mistake made. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the record of service, prior to the one incident, was clean and the applicant had excelled within the military. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The third party statement provided with the application speak highly of the applicant’s character and performance. The applicant contends obtaining many employment positions in multiple corporations, and completing college and attaining a bachelor’s degree. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. 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. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board’s Medical Advisor reviewed DoD and VA medical records and found no mitigating BH diagnoses on the applicant. The applicant provided no documents or testimony of a condition or experience, that, when applying liberal consideration, could have excused or mitigated a discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? N/A (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? N/A (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? N/A b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change because of a desire to rejoin the Military Service. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant was a Warrant Officer, so there is no reentry code supplied upon discharge, honorable or otherwise. (2) The applicant contends being judged harshly for the mistake made. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. The applicant already holds an Honorable discharge, and the narrative reason of unacceptable conduct is proper. The applicant requests a change to RE-code, but Warrant Officers do not get an RE-code when discharge – whether honorable or otherwise. (3) The applicant contends the record of service, prior to the one incident, was clean and the applicant had excelled within the military. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record, but determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant’s 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. By driving under the influence, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (4) The applicant contends obtaining many employment positions in multiple corporations, and completing college and attaining a bachelor’s degree. The ADRB 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 must 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. In this case, the Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant’s current narrative reason relating to the discharge is proper and equitable. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the characterization of service due to it already being Honorable. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code as a DUI is unacceptable conduct for a Warrant Officer, thus the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) As there was no RE-code listed on the applicant’s discharge paperwork, due to being a Warrant Officer, no upgrade actions are required for this item. ? 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL – Absent Without Leave AMHRR – Army Military Human Resource Record BCD – Bad Conduct Discharge BH – Behavioral Health CG – Company Grade Article 15 CID – Criminal Investigation Division ELS – Entry Level Status FG – Field Grade Article 15 GD – General Discharge HS – High School HD – Honorable Discharge IADT – Initial Active Duty Training MP – Military Police MST – Military Sexual Trauma N/A – Not applicable NCO – Noncommissioned Officer NIF – Not in File NOS – Not Otherwise Specified OAD – Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) – Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF – Official Military Personnel File PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE – Re-entry SCM – Summary Court Martial SPCM – Special Court Martial SPD – Separation Program Designator TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury UNC – Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC – Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA – Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20200007789 1