Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 071130 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents submitted by the applicant. II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Tender Offer: NA See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Discharge Under Review Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 031022 Discharge Received: Date: 040120 Chapter: 4-2b AR: 600-8-24 Reason: Unacceptable Conduct RE: SPD: JNC Unit/Location: HHD, 116th MI Group, Fort Gordon, GA Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 030724, disobeyed a lawful command from a LTC (030715), forfeiture of $1,740.60 x 2; $1,500 (suspended) (GO). Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 24 Current ENL Date: 000211 Current ENL Term: 3 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 11Mos, 10Days ????? Total Service: 04 Yrs, 11Mos, 03Days ????? Previous Discharges: ARNG-951227-960731/NA IADT-960801-961219/UNC ARNG-961220-991216/HD ARNG-991217-000210/NA Highest Grade: 0-2 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 35D Tactical Intel GT: NA EDU: BS Business Admin Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Bell, FL Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 6 August 2003, the applicant was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2 and 4-20 by reason of substandard performannce of duty, moral and professional dereliction, and misconduct. The applicant was directed to show cause for her retention on active duty for failure to conform to prescribed standards of dress, personal appearance or military deportment, and defective attitude under AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2a (6) and (8); diagnosed with a personality disorder under AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2a (14); and misconduct , moral and professional dereliction under AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2b (4) and (5). She was advised that she could submit a voluntary resignation in lieu of elimination or submit a written rebuttal providing any pertinent facts concerning her elimination. The applicant's resignation from the Army under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4, in lieu of further elimination proceedings is not part of the available record and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process. On 22 October 2003, the Commander, United States Army Intelligence and Security Command, Fort Belvoir, VA, recommended that the applicant be eliminated from the service under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 600-8-24, with issuance of a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The Ad Hoc Review Board met, and on 19 December 2003, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board, and directed that the applicant be separated from the U.S. Army with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 600-8-24 sets the basic authority for Officer Transfers and Discharges. Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and the interest of national security. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant's military records for the term of service under review, the issues and documents that she submitted, the analyst determined that the evidence was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of the discharge under review. The applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of her service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by Army Officers. The analyst concluded that by her misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance. Therefore, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 22 October 2008 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: NA VIII. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. IX. Board Decision XI. Certification Signature Board Vote: Approval Authority: Character - Change 2 No change 3 Reason - Change 0 No change 5 (Board member names available upon request) EDGAR J. YANGER Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: No Change Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: None ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20070017727 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages