| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Margaret V. Thompson | Member | |
| Mr. Eric N. Andersen | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That item 26 (Separation Code) on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be changed.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his Separation Program Designator (SPD) does not entitle him to any benefits such as medical or separation pay for 17 1/2 years of honorable service. He contends that his records show that he has done great things for the Army and nation. He states that he was punished with an Article 15 and Relief for Cause, that he apologized to those he hurt and his family and friends, and that all benefits such as medical, commissary/exchange, and separation pay are warranted. In support of his application, he submits an attachment that lists all enclosures.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
At the time the applicant submitted his application he was a major serving on active duty.
On 5 March 2002, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for disobeying a lawful command, conduct unbecoming of an officer and adultery. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction and an official written reprimand. The applicant was issued a General Officer Memorandum of Record on 11 March 2002.
On 11 March 2002, the applicant was notified of pending elimination proceedings and his requirement to show cause for retention. On 10 April 2002, the applicant elected to appear before a Board of Inquiry to show cause for retention.
On 18 July 2002, the applicant was notified that he was not selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel. The applicant was also notified that the Secretary of the Army had approved a recommendation by a Selective Continuation Board to allow him to continue to serve on active duty until reaching 24 years of Active Commissioned Service. On 19 August 2002, the applicant elected to accept this period of retention up to 24 years of Active Commissioned Service.
On 28 June 2002, a Show Cause Board of Inquiry convened and substantiated the allegations against the applicant and recommended elimination from the service with an Honorable Discharge.
On 5 September 2002, the separation authority concurred with the findings and recommendations of the Board of Inquiry that the applicant be eliminated from service with an Honorable Discharge.
On 15 October 2002, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army Review Boards approved the elimination of the applicant from the service and directed that he be honorably discharged.
On 3 December 2002, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b, for unacceptable conduct.
Item 26 (Separation Code) on the applicant's DD Form 214 shows “JNC”. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes) states the reason for discharge based on separation code “JNC” is “Unacceptable Conduct” and the regulatory authority is Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b. This separation code is used for an involuntary discharge.
Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges) prescribes policies and procedures governing transfer and discharge of officer personnel. Chapter 4 of this regulation prescribes reasons and procedures for eliminating officers of substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interests of national security.
Paragraph 4-1 of Army Regulation 600-8-24 states: An officer is permitted to serve in the Army because of the special trust and confidence the President and the nation have placed in the officer’s patriotism, valor, fidelity and competence. An officer is expected to display responsibility commensurate to this special trust and confidence and to act with the highest integrity at all times. However, an officer who will not or can not maintain those standards will be separated.
Paragraph 4-2b of Army Regulation 600-8-24 specifically governs elimination for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction or in the interests of national security.
Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes) prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the separation program designators to be used for these stated reasons.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The separation code used in the applicant’s case is correct and was applied in accordance with the applicable regulations.
2. The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that the separation code issued to him was in error or unjust.
3. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
FNE____ MVT_____ ENA_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002082167 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030715 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.0200 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130007972
After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review and notwithstanding the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the narrative reason for discharge was too harsh based on the quality of the applicant's service, circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e., paragraph 4-2a more appropriate reason), and as a result it is inequitable. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: None were provided with the application. AR 600-8-24,...
ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090008213
On 31 January 2001, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board, and directed that the applicant be discharged from the U.S. Army with a characterization of service of honorable. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicants military records during the term of service under review, documents, and the issues he submitted, the analyst found that someone in the separation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003409
On 12 January 2012, he was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), paragraph 4-2b, by reason of his intentional omissions or misstatement of fact in official statements or records for acts of personal misconduct and conduct unbecoming an officer. A separation under honorable conditions will normally be appropriate when an officer: (1) submits an unqualified resignation or a request for release...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130006489
Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 19 December 2012 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Unacceptable Conduct, AR 600-8-24 paragraph 4-2b, JNC, NA e. Unit of assignment: B Company, Troop Command, Dwight David Eisenhower Army Medical Center, Fort Gordon, GA f. Current Entry Date/Term: OAD 5 March 2009, 54 months g. Current Term Net Active Service: 3 years, 9 months, 15 days h. Total Service: 4 years, 10 months, 2 days i. AR 600-8-24, paragraph 1-22a,...
ARMY | DRB | CY2012 | AR20120020002
Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 November 1995 and was discharged 9 May 2009. On 30 March 2012, the intermediate commander recommended the applicant elimination under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2(a) for substandard performance of duty and under paragraph 4-2(b) for misconduct and moral or professional dereliction based on the applicant's failure to exercise necessary leadership, acts of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019585
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. He stated under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), you (the Group Commander) are required to initiate a separation request for actions committed by a WO that preclude the WO from performing in his MOS. On 14 May 2014, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request to correct his DD Form 214 to show he was discharged due to loss of his MOS.
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130003969
Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: After serving in the United States Army Reserve and Regular Army for a period of 5 years, 9 months, and 22 days as an enlisted Soldier; on 17 May 2007 the applicant was commissioned as a second lieutenant and ordered to active duty. A negative counseling statement, dated 6 December 2010, for testing positive for use of THC. The evidence of record shows the applicant's positive urinalysis test was a result of the commands random urine testing...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | AR20110006066
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 and the issues submitted with the application, the analyst determined that the evidence was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of the discharge under review. The evidence of record shows that the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, AR 600-8-24, by reason...
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080004394
The Ad Hoc Review Board met, and on 22 August 2006, 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 fully honorable. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013661
The applicant continues by stating there is a probability that the documents submitted with this application were not readily available or not considered by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB). 4. his recycle/relief form, dated 26 June 2008, shows he was relieved from the MIBOLC Class 08-004 because he plagiarized his battle analysis paper. The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that the narrative reason for separation and separation...