1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: Yes 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is general (under honorable conditions). The applicant requests, through counsel, an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determined the applicant had post-traumatic stress disorder, rated at 70 percent disability, and anxiety disorder, rated at 30 percent disability. The applicant was deployed to combat zones in Iraq on three occasions, shot at by snipers, experienced mortar attacks, IEDs. The applicant placed applicant’s life on the line even more than 99 percent of applicant’s fellow members in the armed forces let alone the American people. The applicant’s PTSD was diagnosed post-service by the VA. The applicant is not contending applicant was insane and did not comprehend right from wrong. The applicant contends having PTSD and self-medicated with alcohol, which resulted in the DUIs. Some veterans self-medicate with marijuana, but marijuana does not result in DUIs. The applicant self-medicated with a legal substance, alcohol, not an illegal drug, marijuana. Counsel argues, not all members react the same. Some do and see atrocities and come out of the service without any problem, not even PTSD. Some have PTSD, but do not commit misconduct. The applicant’s mental health conditions, including PTSD mitigate applicant’s misconduct. The applicant placed applicant’s neck on the line for applicant’s country for three and a half years; many have not served one day in a combat zone. The supporting documentation in applicant’s record show mitigation, especially since applicant had no DUI or alcohol issues until after applicant’s deployment? The applicant did not know the applicant had PTSD. The applicant had the classical symptoms of anxiety, stress, depression, insomnia, escalation of drinking, DUIs, and the downward spiral of an honorable officer who served applicant’s country with service in combat for over three years of applicant’s 14-year career and an additional eight months deployed to Qatar during two tours. Counsel explains the applicant regrets applicant’s reluctance to admit applicant had a problem and the applicant’s reasons applicant did not seek help. The applicant is not a criminal, but unfortunately developed an addiction to alcohol, not illegal drugs. It will be a travesty of justice if this honorable veteran is denied an upgrade considering all of the facts of the applicant’s case. The applicant lost applicant’s retirement, do not destroy applicant’s dignity and dismiss those 14 years of honorable service. Counsel further details the contentions in the allied legal brief provided with the application. In a records review conducted on 22 March 2022, 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, Paragraphs 4-2b and 4-24a(1) / BNC / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 16 November 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 21 October 2015 (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(5), 4-2b(8), and 4-2c(5) due to applicant’s personal misconduct and substantiated derogatory information filed in applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record. The elimination action was based on the following specific reasons: On or about 13 September 2014, the applicant was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and for driving with a suspended license at or near Sumter County in Sumter, SC, and received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, which was filed in applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record. The applicant failed to report the below misconduct in accordance with Army Regulation 380-67, Personnel Security Program (the regulation governing security clearance procedures). On 19 December 2009, at or near Chatham County, GA, the applicant was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol with a breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) level of .177 percent. On 23 May 2010, at or near Macon County, GA, the applicant was again arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol with a BrAC of .182 percent. On 18 January 2011, at or near Fulton County in Atlanta, GA, the applicant was convicted of wrongfully acquiring a license plate for the purpose of concealing the identification of a motor vehicle and for driving with a suspended license. On 28 December 2011, the applicant was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and for driving with a suspended license at or near Fulton County in Hapeville, GA. Conduct unbecoming of an officer as indicated by the above-referenced items. (3) Legal Consultation Date: 13 November 2015 (4) GOSCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 16 December 2015, the GOSCA recommended approval of the applicant’s request to resign in lieu of elimination. / General (Under Honorable Conditions) On 13 November 2015, the applicant requested Resignation in Lieu of Elimination (RILE), contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions) and the GOSCA recommended approval. On 5 April 2016, the applicant requested Retirement in Lieu of Elimination. On 13 July 2016, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Army Review Boards), approved the applicant’s Retirement in Lieu of Elimination, but later the DASA was informed the applicant did not have the number of years of service required for either regular retirement or non-regular retirement. (5) DA Board of Review for Eliminations: On 30 October 2016, the Army Board of Review for Eliminations considered the GOSCA’s request to involuntary separate the applicant for misconduct and moral or professional dereliction in accordance with AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b and derogatory information, paragraph 4-2c. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 30 October 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) / The DASA rescinded her approval of the applicant’s request for Retirement in Lieu of Elimination and approved the applicant’s request for a Resignation in Lieu of Elimination. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 1 June 1996 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment: / Education: 20 / Bachelor’s Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-4 / 14A, Air Defense Artillery / 20 years, 5 months, 16 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR CADET, 27 August 1994 – 31 May 1996 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Iraq (13 April 2003 – 12 July 2004; 16 March 2007 – 15 May 2008), Qatar (26 September 2013 – 6 March 2014; 20 January 2015 – 19 March 2015) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-4CS, BSM-2, MSM-2, ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR-3 g. Performance Ratings: 7 February 2003 – 17 May 2004 / Best Qualified 18 May 2004 – 10 January 2005 / Not Evaluated 27 May 2005 – 1 June 2013 / Best Qualified 2 June 2013 – 2 June 2014 / Highly Qualified 3 June 2014 – 2 June 2015 / Not Qualified 3 June 2015 – 2 June 2016 / Highly Qualified 3 June 2016 – 15 November 2016 / Highly Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: DPS Incident Report, dated 19 December 2009, reflects the applicant was arrested for DUI and issued a warning for speeding and open container. The report revealed an officer observed the applicant speeding and a traffic stop was initiated. The applicant performed a field sobriety and test and agreed to provide a breath sample. The applicant was tested the Intoxilyzer 5000 and registered a breath alcohol content of .183 and .177 percent. DPS Incident Report, dated 23 May 2010, reflects the applicant was arrested for driving under the Influence-alcohol and failure to dim lights. The report revealed an officer observed the applicant speeding and a traffic stop was initiated. The applicant failed the field sobriety test and was administered a roadside alco-sensor test, which registered and alcohol content of .188 percent. The applicant was arrested and transported to Macon County Jail and administered a series of breath tests, which registered .182 and .189 percent. Hapeville Police Department Officer Report for Incident, dated 28 December 2011, reflects The applicant was arrested for failure to maintain lane; driving under the influence of alcohol, and driving on a suspended license. The report revealed a police officer initiated a traffic stop because the vehicle the applicant was driving was weaving in and out of two lanes. The officer approached the vehicle and observed a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from the vehicle. After the officer asked the applicant for applicant’s driver’s license several times, the applicant admitted they were suspended. The applicant refused to take the field sobriety test and the breath test and was placed under arrest. Memorandum, subject: Intent to Deny Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) Access Eligibility and Revoke Security Clearance, dated 14 February 2015, reflects the Consolidated Adjudications Facility made a preliminary decision to deny the applicants SCI access eligibility and revoke applicant’s security clearance. The applicant answered “no” to question 22 regarding applicant’s police record and being charged with an offense involving alcohol. Investigation revealed several arrests were omitted from the applicant’s questionnaire. In addition to the applicant’s arrest record for DUIs, a bench warrant was issued on 15 July 2013, by Chatham State Court for the applicant being in contempt of court. Sumter County Sheriff’s Office Incident/Investigation Report, dated 13 September 2014, reflects the applicant was arrested for DUI. Investigation revealed a police officer noticed a vehicle traveling with no tag light. The officer’s vehicle and the other vehicle made a right turn and the officer noticed the vehicle was driving in the wrong lane of traffic for a while and crossed the center line several times before returning to the right lane. The officer initiated a traffic stop and smelled the odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from the applicant. The applicant refused the HGN test and was placed under arrest. The applicant also refused to submit to a breathalyzer. While conducting an inventory of the vehicle, the officer found a red plastic, containing beer in the front cup holder of the vehicle. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 17 March 2015, for being detained by the Sumter County Sheriff's Office, after an officer observed the applicant driving erratically on 13 September 2014. During the traffic stop, the officer noticed the applicant’s apparent intoxication, that his license was suspended, and that applicant had an open container of alcohol in the vehicle. At the traffic stop and subsequent to applicant’s arrest, applicant refused to take a lawfully requested test to measure his blood alcohol content. The applicant submitted rebuttal matters. Criminal History Record (Rap Sheet), dated 17 September 2015, reflects on 19 December 2009, the applicant was arrested for DUI by the Georgia State Patrol; disposition: 1 July 2013, time expired restriction for noncriminal justice purposes. On 16 January 2011, applicant was arrested for acquiring license plate of concealing identification of motor vehicle and driving while license suspended or revoked by the Atlanta Police Department; disposition: Guilty and sentenced to a fine of $7280. On 28 December 2011, he was arrested for DUI and driving while license suspended or revoked by the Hapeville Police Department; disposition: 29 December 2013, time expired restriction for noncriminal justice purposes. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided in-service medical records, dated 26 May 2015, reflecting applicant was admitted to the Dwight D. Eisenhower Army Medical Center on 28 April 2015, referred by applicant’s commander due to DUI. The applicant was discharged on 26 May 2015 and diagnosed with: Alcohol Dependence; Adjustment Disorder, with Anxiety; Avoidant Personality Traits; and Occupational and Legal Problems. Report of Medical History, dated 3 February 2016, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: History of adjustment disorder with anxious mood due to impending involuntary separation. The examiner further elaborates on the applicant’s background to include applicant’s three DUIs arrest record, a bench warrant for applicant’s arrest, and the applicant was diagnosed with alcohol dependence and admitted for 30-day inpatient rehabilitation at Fort Gordon. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 9 February 2016, reflects the applicant was unfit for duty due to a personality disorder or other mental condition that did not amount to a medical disability. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood; Alcohol use disorder, Severe. Memorandum, subject: Medical Retention Decision Point Review [Applicant], dated 6 June 2016, opined the applicant did not meet MRDP for a psychiatric diagnosis. The diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood had not required extended or recurrent hospitalization. It had not necessitated limitation of duty or interfered with the performance of military duty. The diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood meets medical retention standards (IAW Army Directive 2013-12, implementation of Defense Policy change concerning Chronic Adjustment Disorder). The Officer was diagnosed with Alcohol Use Disorder as indicated in MAJ K. note dated 27 April 2016. Alcohol related diagnoses do not fail medical retention standards. The applicant provided VA Rating Decision, dated 21 February 2019, reflecting the applicant was rated 30 percent disability for anxiety disorder and 70 percent disability for post-traumatic stress disorder. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Two DD Forms 293; three legal briefs; self-authored statement; VA rating decision; “Kurta memo”; “Wilkie memo”; electronic mail Message; change of command ceremony flyer; service record; separation packet, in-service medical documents; DD Form 214; two third-party statements. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states after applicant’s discharge applicant took charge of applicant’s life, stopped drinking, has driving privileges, and taking online classes to become a Certified Sports Agent. 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) Paragraph 1-23b, states an officer will normally receive a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service when the officer’s military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A separation under general (under honorable conditions) normally appropriate when an officer: Submits an unqualified resignation; Separated based on misconduct; discharged for physical disability resulting from intentional misconduct or neglect; and, for final revocation of a security clearance. (4) Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty. (5) Paragraph 4-2b, prescribes for the elimination of an officer for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interests of national security. (6) Paragraph 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, 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 “BNC” as the appropriate code to assign commissioned officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b and 4-24a(1), 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 an upgrade to honorable. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraphs 4-2b and 4-24a(1), AR 600-8-24 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under these paragraph is “Unacceptable Conduct,” and the separation code is “BNC.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends the VA rated the applicant 70 percent disability for post-traumatic stress disorder and 30 percent disability for anxiety disorder. The applicant provided a VA rating decision to support his contention, which reflects the applicant was rated 70 percent disability for PTSD and 30 percent disability for anxiety. The applicant’s AMHRR reflects the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation (MSE) on 9 February 2016, which reflects the applicant was unfit for duty due to a personality disorder or other mental condition which did not amount to a medical disability. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood; Alcohol use disorder, Severe. The MSE was considered by the separation authority. The applicant contends having had PTSD and because of the disorder and grief, applicant self- medicated with alcohol, a legal substance, which is a mitigating circumstance and deserves liberal considerations under the Kurta and Wilkie memorandums. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s mental health conditions to determine whether relief is warranted on the basis of equity and injustice. The applicant contends applicant had no DUIs or alcohol issues until after applicant’s deployment. The applicant’s AMHRR reflects the applicant deployed between 13 April 2003 and 12 July 2004. The applicant’s record indicates the earliest indication of misconduct was on 19 December 2009, when he was arrested for DUI and issued a warning for speeding and open container. The applicant contends being an honorable officer with three combat tours for over three years of applicant’s 14-year service. The third party statement speak highly of the applicant. The applicant contends after applicant’s discharge applicant took charge of applicant’s life, stopped drinking, has driving privileges, and taking online classes to become a Certified Sports Agent. 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? Yes. The Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed DoD and VA medical records, applicant submissions and third party statements, and found the applicant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder, Alcohol abuse and dependence, Anxiety Disorder, PTSD, and Major Depression, which, in the opinion of the Board’s Medical Advisor, after applying liberal consideration, could potentially mitigate applicant’s discharge. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board’s Medical Advisor found in-service BH diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder, Alcohol Abuse and Dependence, and Anxiety Disorder. Applicant has additional post-service BH diagnoses of PTSD, and Major Depression. The applicant is also service connected for PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board’s Medical Advisor, after applying liberal consideration, opined that while the applicant has a diagnosis of PTSD it is not a mitigating factor in applicant’s misconduct that led to applicant’s discharge. While substance usage (Alcohol) may be related to PTSD to manage symptoms, the decision to refuse to submit to a breathalyzer, failure to report misconduct in accordance with Army Regulation governing security clearance procedures, conviction of wrongfully acquiring a license plate for the purpose of concealing the identification of a motor vehicle and for driving with a suspended license are not part of the sequela of symptoms associated with PTSD and therefore has no nexus with the applicant’s PTSD or other BH conditions. Rather, this misconduct represents conscious and deliberate decisions, and therefore are not mitigated. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board’s application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the Board’s Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that any of the applicant’s medical conditions outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board determined that the available evidence did not support a change to the narrative reason for discharge. (2) The applicant contends the VA rated the applicant 70 percent disability for post- traumatic stress disorder and 30 percent disability for anxiety disorder. The ADRB is not bound by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decisions. There is no law or regulation which requires that an unfavorable discharge must be upgraded based solely on the Board determination that there was a condition or experience that existed during the applicant’s time in service. The Board must also articulate the nexus between that condition or experience and the basis for separation. Then, the Board must determine that the condition or experience outweighed the basis for separation. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former service member is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the ARBA when determining a member’s discharge characterization. In this case, the Board liberally considered the applicant’s BH conditions, but determined that the discharge is proper and equitable. (3) The applicant contends applicant is not claiming to be insane or did not comprehend right from wrong; but applicant had PTSD and self-medicated with alcohol, a legal substance. The Board liberally considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately determined the applicant’s PTSD did not outweigh the mitigated misconduct that was the basis for applicant’s separation. (4) The applicant contends having had no DUI or alcohol issues until after applicant’s deployment. The Board considered this contention during proceedings, but ultimately this contention did not warrant an upgrade. (5) The applicant contends being an honorable officer with three combat tours for over three years of applicant’s 14-year service. The Board 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 the unmitigated refusing to submit to a breathalyzer, failure to report misconduct in accordance with Army Regulation governing security clearance procedures, conviction of wrongfully acquiring a license plate for the purpose of concealing the identification of a motor vehicle and for driving with a suspended license, a second offense of driving with a suspended license, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (6) The applicant contends after applicant’s discharge applicant took charge of applicant’s life, stopped drinking, has driving privileges, and taking online classes to become a Certified Sports Agent. 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 determined that this contention did not warrant an upgrade, 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 applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the applicant’s Adjustment Disorder, Alcohol abuse and dependence, Anxiety Disorder, PTSD, and Major Depression did not excuse or mitigate the offenses of refusing to submit to a breathalyzer, failure to report misconduct in accordance with Army Regulation governing security clearance procedures, conviction of wrongfully acquiring a license plate for the purpose of concealing the identification of a motor vehicle and for driving with a suspended license, and the discharge was both proper and equitable. 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. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, and the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 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 RE Code to: No Change e. 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 AR20210003217 1