1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 23 August 2020 b. Date Received: 29 September 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 General (Under Honorable Conditions). The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. b. The applicant seeks relief contending, they take great pride in having served and regret the choice that cost them their career. They joined the United States Army to serve their country like their family before them and fully admit they made a mistake, understanding the need for ramifications for their actions, fought to stay in while maintaining a positive attitude and good work ethic even after receiving their driving under the influence (DUI). (1) Due to the commander's guidance to not drink near the underage Soldiers, they left post because of the limited options on Fort Bragg, and went to a bar called Cadillac Ranch where they received a stamp on their hand indicating they were eligible to drink. The applicant and their three friends talked about serious issues in their lives, including their sister's cancer diagnosis, their friend's sick mother, and their upcoming deployment. After having three drinks, they left at approximately 12:00AM and stopped for food on the way back, arriving at the gate at 12:30AM. Upon entering, the gate guard noticed the stamp on their hand from Cadillac Ranch and proceeded to stop their vehicle and have them take a breathalyzer test. Their blood alcohol content (BAC) came back at exactly 0.08 which resulted in them being required to remain at the station until their BAC was below 0.08. After waiting four hours, their results were still coming back as 0.08 and did not get lower, they deemed them sober enough to be released. Once cleared, their CPT picked them up. (2) They were told by their SGT that the Battalion CSM had inquired about the status of their separation, but the SGT stated they supported them and wanted them to remain in the military which gave the applicant hope the situation was not too bad. They were supposed to deploy with the first wave of Soldiers, which did not happen because of their administrative flag. The deployment also separated them from their leadership that was supporting them through the process, leaving them without guidance from their superiors and little knowledge to fight the GOMOR they received. They managed to get the GOMOR filed in their local record only so that way if there were no incidents in a year, the GOMOR would not be filed in their permanent record. Their hope was to still be able to promote and remain productive in the Army. (3) They prepared a rebuttal with positive written statements from the deployed and rear- detachment Soldiers in regard to their character and work ethic. Their packet was approved by the acting battalion commander [their previous company commander] and the last thing they needed was approval from the brigade commander, which was denied. The applicant requested to speak with the brigade commander even after being informed by their First Sergeant that it would not affect their decision, informing the applicant they would not be promoted because the Army is run like a business, and they would no longer be useful to the Army. They were discouraged to take it higher because of the difficulties faced within their chain of command. They felt like they were fighting all this by themselves with no guidance from leadership within their organization. Currently, they are unable to reenlist and continue their service unless they receive a recommendation from their prior leadership (CPT). (4) They have since found out their discharge was inequitable because it was based on one incident in 23 months of honorable service with no other adverse actions. Per AR 600-85, chapter 10-6, states "two serious alcohol-related incidents are grounds for separation", whereas they have only received one. They had no knowledge of that regulation (which had changed just one year prior) and without any leadership to support them, had no one to inform them of the recent change. The applicant desires to be of service to the Army while furthering their education and opportunities as a civilian. They hope the Board recognizes their determination to be in good standing with the Army for future enlistment opportunities and their own future. c. Board Type and Decision: In a records review conducted on 5 January 2024, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and change the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. No change to the reentry code. 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: 6 October 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 29 August 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) on 21 May 2017 (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 29 August 2017 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 12 September 2017 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 28 December 2015 / 3 years and 32 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / One-Year College / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 35F1P 1K Intelligence Analyst / 1 year and 2 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, PB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: (1) On 29 October 2015, the applicant enlisted in the United States Army Reserve's Delayed Entry Program; on 28 December 2015, they enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years and 32 weeks as a PFC. (2) On 22 May 2017, the applicant was flagged, Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (FLAG), for field initiated involuntary separation (BA). The company commander notified the applicant of their intent to separate them. (3) The same day, the applicant was command referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment at Robinson Health Clinic, pending a field grade Article 15 for driving under the influence (DUI), listing their performance as "excellent" and their behavior and conduct as "good", recommending alcohol and/or drug education. (4) On 27 June 2017, the applicant completed a medical assessment and examination at Robinson Health Clinic, Fayetteville, NC, for their impending separation and was qualified for service and separation. (5) On 24 July 2017, the applicant responded to their memorandum of reprimand [dated 26 June 2017] requesting this be filed locally rather than in their OMPF. They understand the gravity of this situation, nevertheless, their desire is to continue to serve and deploy with their fellow Paratroopers. It is a matter of great pride because their grandfather was a combat veteran who served in Vietnam. Their great-grandfather was a Paratrooper in World War II who jumped into Europe during the Normandy invasion. They felt compelled to enter the Army and elected to go to Airborne School and serve in the 82nd Airborne Division. They were awarded a Top Secret security clearance. The applicant went out with PFC to discuss their upcoming deployment and their responses in their Blue Books. They went to Cadillac Ranch where they drank some beer along with a lot of water and listened to some country western music while they spoke. When they left, they did not feel impaired. They purposely limited their intake of beer and drank plenty of water in an effort to avoid intoxication. They drove to Taco Bell to get some take out and they were headed to a friend's house on Fort Bragg. The applicant stated they are pleading Not Guilty in court. They have never been arrested or accused of a crime, they come from a close, loyal, and law-abiding family. They were professional and cooperative with law enforcement, carefully following the gate guard's instructions. The guard asked them to turn off the car and place the keys on the dashboard. In light of their prior clean record and their potential for further service, they request the GOMOR be filed locally. They believe over the next three years they can demonstrate that this incident is out of character and not a true indication of their potential or moral fiber. They believed, if given the chance, their conduct and performance will far exceed the standards expected of a Paratrooper in the U.S. Army. This experience has been humbling and life changing. Regardless of the outcome in court, the applicant believes they have learned from this experience and they can become a better Soldier, a better leader, and a better person, they just need the chance. (6) On 29 August 2017, the company commander initiated action to separate the applicant under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, Misconduct (Commission of a Serious Offense) with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service. The applicant acknowledged receipt of their separation notice and elected to consult with defense counsel; they additionally elected to submit a statement on their behalf within 7 duty days of the notice. (7) On 31 August 2017, the applicant requested to be retained in the U.S. Army, stating they wanted to serve as a paratrooper and deploy with their fellow paratroopers. They hoped to lead and mentor the next generation of paratroopers. Their grandfather was a combat veteran who served in Vietnam. Their great-grandfather was a paratrooper in World War II who jumped into Europe during the Normandy invasion. Being a paratrooper is a matter of great pride. When they joined, they felt compelled to attend Airborne School and serve in the Division. They were awarded their MOS, 35F and was awarded a Top Secret Security Clearance. They wanted to deploy with their unit and this matter delayed their opportunity to serve their country overseas. They fully understood the gravity of this situation but they did not intend to get drunk. They were talking with a battle buddy about both professional and personal matters of theirs, purposely limited their intake of beer, and drank plenty of water. They drove their battle buddy to Taco Bell and they were headed to a friend's house on Fort Bragg. They stated they were polite and cooperative with the law enforcement officer and they are pleading Not Guilty in any related charges in court, on the advice of their civilian criminal defense attorney. They have no criminal history, never been accused of a crime, a good disciplinary history with no negative counseling statements. They come from a close, loyal, and law-abiding family. They stated please consider my potential for future service; they will recover from this incident and their performance will far exceed the standards expected of a paratrooper; they can become a better Soldier, a better leader, and a better person. (8) On 11 September 2017, the battalion commander concurred with separation with a characterization of service of General (Under Honorable Conditions), suspending separation for a period of twelve (12) months. (9) On 12 September 2017, the appropriate separation authority approved the discharge and directed the applicant be separated with a characterization of service of General (Under Honorable Conditions). (10) A DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) reflects the applicant was discharged accordingly on 6 October 2017, with 1 year, 9 months, and 9 days. The applicant had not completed their first full term of service. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: On 29 June 2017, the applicant completed a separation mental status examination at the Robinson Embedded Behavioral Health (REBH)/Womack Army Medical Center (WAMC), Fayetteville, NC; there was no evidence of mental defect, emotional illness, or psychiatric disorder of sufficient severity to warrant disposition through military medical channels. The Soldier was psychologically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the separation authority. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge); Three Monthly Counseling Forms (February, April, and August 2017); Deployment Orders (Operation Freedom's Sentinel) to Afghanistan; Emails with Military Legal Counsel; Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment; AR 600-85 Printed Reference; Response to Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 24 July 2017; DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) a. Five Character Statements as follows: (1) On 5 July 2017, a character statement from SPC, provides they have been in the Army for over 6 years and met the applicant upon arrival at the unit. SPC has had the opportunity to get to know the applicant as a peer and a friend. The applicant has dedicated their time in the Army to the betterment of themselves and those around them and has placed their job in the Army first in their life. This was a one-time mistake and out of character for the applicant. Both on and off duty, SPC has not seen the applicant utilize alcohol of any sort during the time they have spent together. SPC stated the applicant should not be punished to the fullest extent of the law as the applicant's character does not indicate a person that possesses a threat to the professional image and integrity of our Army. It is their belief that people of the applicant's character and work ethic are too rare to risk losing over a one-time, out of character incident and they earnestly recommend suspending any punishment. (2) On 5 July 2017, a character statement from SPC, provides they met the applicant in September 2016, when they were assigned to train the applicant to assume the role of Physical Security. Despite needing training in some areas, the applicant understood their role in the military and gradually became an asset to their section. They are above average in terms of intelligence and maturity. During a Battalion Field Training Exercise in March 2017, the applicant has shown improvement in the quality of their research, understanding, and presentation to the Command Team. They communicate well with other sections and use that to their advantage, especially within their Intelligence Briefs. The applicant takes feedback with due diligence, positioning to excel at all times; they have maintained above average performance within the Army Physical Fitness Test, which reflects pride, determination, and respect for their purpose within the military. SPC believes the applicant regrets their action and can still continue to be an asset not just to the S2 section, but the entire battalion. (3) On 9 July 2017, a character statement from SGT, S2 NCOIC, states they were the applicant's first line supervisor for 5 months and was immediately impressed by their motivation in the workplace. The applicant has an innate sense of urgency that leaders look for in junior Soldiers and takes initiative to complete tasks outside of their expertise and has been successful; the applicant has helped with the battalion's physical security and has been an integral part of their shop's success in the last field exercise. The applicant made a one-time mistake and this was out of character for them; the applicant was very disappointed in themself but more disappointed for letting down the team. They have never been in trouble with the law to their knowledge and this one-time lapse came at a critical time prior to a deployment but they do not believe the applicant should be punished to the fullest extent of the law and their character does not indicate a person that possesses a threat to the professional image and integrity of the Army and they are too rare to risk losing over a one-time, out-of-character incident. (4) On 21 July 2017, a character statement from CPT, their company commander was the officer in charge (OIC) from May 2016 to May 2017, during the time of the applicant's arrival, 1 September 2016; the applicant was tasked to be the primary security custodian for the battalion. Throughout their time in the S2 section, the applicant displayed motivation, initiative, and a genuine desire to be a productive member of the team. The CPT states their section was severely undermanned for the majority of their year as the battalion S2, and as a junior enlisted Soldier, the applicant often completed tasks above their paygrade. They took initiative by improving the processes and trackers used for physical security staff, assistance visits and inspections of subordinate unit arms, supply, NBC, and commo rooms. The OIC relied on the applicant to be their S2 Radio Transmitter Operator on several airborne command post operations, as they were the only Paratrooper on active jump status in their section. They accomplished tasks with a positive attitude and was always looking for ways to progress as a Paratrooper and improve their section. The OIC strongly believed the applicant deserved the chance to continue to serve in the U.S. Army based on their performance in the 127 BEB S2 section. (5) On 5 September 2017, a character statement from SSG, provides they served in their position since August 2017 and for the last month, the applicant served as an Intelligence Analyst/Physical Security Manager. They have done an outstanding job while under their supervision. They have taken the initiative on tasks that were instrumental to the Battalion's success during the Installation Physical Security Inspection. They went above and beyond to ensure the battalion complied. SSG has never seen a Soldier exude so much professionalism, knowledge, and expertise during their many years of service. Through their observation, they believe the applicant deserves a second chance and should be retained to continue their military service; they faced adversity daily dealing with their circumstance, and at no time buckled under pressure. They made an ill-advised decision but learned from their mistake. SSG believes the applicant will make an excellent leader and will continue to be an asset to the U.S. Army. b. The applicant submitted three monthly counseling forms from February, April, and August 2017 which provide the applicant was learning the job of a Paratrooper, had great work ethic, excellent motivation and drive, outstanding performance, wore their uniform with pride, and was considered an asset to the battalion. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with this application. 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), dated 25 September 2019, 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 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) An Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (2) A General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (3) An Under other-than-honorable-conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (4) Chapter 14 (Separation for Misconduct) established policy and prescribed procedures for separating members for misconduct. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when its clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record. 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. (5) Chapter 15 provides explicitly for separation under the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the Army's best interest. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary's approved designee as announced in updated memoranda. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis. 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army, and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers' Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: (1) RE-1 Applies to: Person completing his or her term of active service who is considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. Eligibility: Qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. (2) RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. (3) RE-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. g. Army Regulation 600-85 (Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP)) dated 28 November 2016, provided a comprehensive alcohol and drug abuse prevention and control policies, procedures, and responsibilities for Soldiers for ASAP services. The ASAP is a command program that emphasizes readiness and personal responsibility. The ultimate decision regarding separation or retention of abusers is the responsibility of the Soldier's chain of command. Abuse of alcohol or the use of illicit drugs by military personnel is inconsistent with Army values and the standards of performance, discipline, and readiness necessary to accomplish the Army's mission. (1) Unit commanders must intervene early and refer all Soldiers suspected or identified as alcohol and/or drug abusers to the ASAP. The unit commander should recommend enrollment based on the Soldier's potential for continued military service in terms of professional skills, behavior, and potential for advancement. (2) ASAP participation is mandatory for all Soldiers who are command referred. Failure to attend a mandatory counseling session may constitute a violation of Article 86 (Absence Without Leave) of the UCMJ. (3) Alcohol and/or other drug abusers, and in some cases dependent alcohol users, may be enrolled in the ASAP when such enrollment is clinically recommended. Soldiers who fail to participate adequately in, or to respond successfully to, rehabilitation will be processed for administrative separation and not be provided another opportunity for rehabilitation except under the most extraordinary circumstances, as determined by the Clinical Director in consultation with the unit commander. (4) All Soldiers who are identified as drug abusers, without exception, will be referred to the ASAP counseling center for screening; be considered for disciplinary action under the UCMJ, as appropriate; and be processed for administrative separation in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. a. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant's Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. b. The available evidence provides the applicant enlisted in the RA as a PFC; they were awarded their MOS, 35F - Intelligence Analyst, received a Top-Secret security clearance, and received their Paratrooper Badge, and scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan June 2017, prior to being discharged. The applicant served 1 year, 4 months, and 24 days without indiscipline. (1) On May 21, 2017, they were charged with a DUI for a BAC of 0.08 coming through the gate of Fort Bragg. They received a Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (FLAG) for field- initiated involuntary separation. The applicant was command referred to ASAP the next day. The applicant received a GOMOR and requested to have it filed locally instead of in their OMPF which was approved. They requested to be retained and submitted five-character letters that spoke to their professionalism, work ethic, and dedication to the Army. (2) The applicant received a separation physical and a mental health examination determining the applicant was in good health with a sound mind. The applicant was discharged for misconduct (serious offense) with a characterization of service of General (Under Honorable Conditions). They completed 1 year, 9 months, and 9 days of their 3 year and 32 weeks contractual obligation prior to the misconduct that led to their discharge. c. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separation members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense and convictions by civil authorities. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record. d. Published Department of Defense guidance indicates that the guidance is not intended to interfere or impede on the Board's statutory independence. The Board will determine the relative weight of the action that led to the discharge and whether it supports relief or not. In reaching is determination, the Board shall consider the applicant's petition, available records and/or submitted documents in support of the petition. 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 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 seeks relief contending, they take great pride in having served and regret the choice that cost them their career. They joined the United States Army to serve their country like their family before them and fully admit they made a mistake, understanding the need for ramifications for their actions, fought to stay in while maintaining a positive attitude and good work ethic even after receiving their driving under the influence (DUI). (2) The applicant contends, due to the commander's guidance to not drink near the underage Soldiers, they left post because of the limited options on Fort Bragg, and went to a bar called Cadillac Ranch where they received a stamp on their hand indicating they were eligible to drink. The applicant and their three friends talked about serious issues in their lives, including their sister's cancer diagnosis, their friend's sick mother, and their upcoming deployment. After having three drinks, they left at approximately 12:00 AM and stopped for food on the way back, arriving at the gate at 12:30 AM. Upon entering, the gate guard noticed the stamp on their hand from Cadillac Ranch and proceeded to stop their vehicle and have them take a breathalyzer test. Their blood alcohol content (BAC) came back at exactly 0.08 which resulted in them being required to remain at the station until their BAC was below 0.08. After waiting four hours, their results were still coming back as 0.08 and did not get lower, they deemed them sober enough to be released. Once cleared, their CPT picked them up. (3) The applicant is contending the deployment separated them from their leadership that was supporting them through the process, leaving them without guidance from their superiors and little knowledge to fight the GOMOR they received. They were told by their SGT that the Battalion CSM had inquired about the status of their separation but the SGT stated they supported them and wanted them to remain in the military which gave the applicant hope the situation was not too bad. They were supposed to deploy with the first wave of Soldiers, which did not happen because of their administrative flag. They managed to get the GOMOR filed in their local record only, so if there were no negative incidents in a year, the GOMOR would not be filed in their permanent record. Their hope was to still be able to get promoted and remain productive in the Army. (4) The applicant is contending they felt like they were fighting all this by themselves with no guidance from leadership within their organization. They were unable to reenlist and continue their service unless they receive a recommendation from their prior leadership (CPT). They prepared a rebuttal with positive written statements from the deployed and rear-detachment Soldiers regarding their character and work ethic. Their packet was approved by the acting battalion commander [their previous company commander] and the last thing they needed was approval from the brigade commander, which was denied. The applicant requested to speak with the brigade commander even after being informed by their First Sergeant that it would not affect their decision, informing the applicant they would not be promoted because the Army is run like a business, and they would no longer be useful to the Army. They were discouraged to take it higher because of the difficulties faced within their chain of command. (5) The applicant is contending their discharge was inequitable because it was based on one incident in 23 months of honorable service with no other adverse actions. Per AR 600-85, chapter 10-6, states "two serious alcohol-related incidents are grounds for separation", whereas they have only received one. They had no knowledge of that regulation (which had changed just one year prior) and without any leadership to support them, had no one to inform them of the recent change. The applicant desires to be of service to the Army while furthering their education and opportunities as a civilian. They hope the Board recognizes their determination to be in good standing with the Army for future enlistment opportunities and their own future. c. The Board determined the discharge is inequitable. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to Honorable and change the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), with a corresponding separation code of JKN. No change to the reentry code. d. Rationale for Decision: The Board carefully considered the applicant's request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, and published Department of Defense guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant's statements, record of service with no prior adverse disciplinary actions, and the frequency and nature of the misconduct - one time DUI with a BAC of 0.8 as the reason for separation. The Board also considered the applicant's security clearance level; TS-SCI serving in a critically short MOS, which left room for the chain of command to consider the amount of time and training invested in the applicant before discharging on a one-time DUI. The board members also considered the character letters provided for the applicant that spoke to his integrity, and commended his job performance, initiative, and motivation. The Board found the applicant's one-time DUI, previous clean record, and good work performance warranted an upgrade and determined the applicant's separation and character of service received upon separation were inequitable. (1) The Board voted to change the applicant's characterization of service to Honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200. (2) The Board voted to change the applicant's narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. (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: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions)/JKN d. Change RE Code to: No change e. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a 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 AR20210006837 1