IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  26 April 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100021064 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions to a fully honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  serving in the Army was the defining period of his life, he loved serving, he loved his comrades, he would give anything to go back to correct his mistakes, and he takes full responsibility and blame for the actions that led to his discharge;

	b.  he thought he recovered from his first incident of alcohol abuse and could control his behavior, but regrettably found this to be untrue; and

	c.  he hasn't drunk alcohol in 3 years, he recently earned his bachelor's degree in business administration and finance, and he desires an upgrade of his characterization of service to allow him to pursue his civilian career without the sigma of having a less than HD.

3.  The applicant provides eight pages from his discharge packet.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military record shows he was appointed as a Reserve warrant officer in the rank of warrant officer one and ordered to concurrent active duty on 26 June 2001.  He was promoted to chief warrant officer two on 26 June 2003.

2.  On 10 November 2004, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being drunk and disorderly, unlawfully striking a chief warrant officer three in the face and knee with his foot, and wrongfully destroying a privately-owned vehicle valued more than $100.00 on 21 August 2004.

3.  On 14 November 2006, the applicant submitted a request for resignation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), chapter 3, paragraph 3-13, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his request, he stated he was not coerced into submitting his resignation and indicated he had been advised of and fully understood the implications of his actions.  Prior to submitting his resignation he acknowledged his option to consult with and be represented by counsel and stated he was fully advised by a member of the Judge Advocate General's Corps in this matter.

4.  On 1 February 2007, the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (Army Review Boards) accepted the applicant's resignation and directed that he be issued a GD.  On 3 April 2007, he was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he completed a total of 6 years, 1 month, and 27 days of active military service.  It also confirms that he was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 3-13, Army Regulation 600-8-24, in lieu of trial by court-martial.

5.  On 8 May 2008 after having carefully reviewed the applicant's record and the issues he presented, the Army Discharge Review Board concluded the applicant's discharge was proper and equitable and voted to deny his request for an upgrade.

6.  A review of the applicant's interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System file revealed it to be void of any documents relating to any court-martial charges or any court-martial.

7.  The discharge packet document extracts submitted by the applicant include:

	a.  a memorandum from his brigade commander and his commanding general showing they recommended that the applicant receive an HD during his discharge process;

	b.  five character references from individuals indicating the applicant's outstanding performance, future potential for service, outstanding performance as an aviator during Operation Enduring Freedom, and technical proficiency as an aviator.  These individuals also indicate the applicant demonstrated traits coincident with an alcohol-related disease which they believe he was able to overcome; and

	c.  a memorandum from a licensed clinical social worker, dated 15 November 2006, stating the applicant was referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program on 11 September 2006 and had a good prognosis to resolve his issue with problematic alcohol consumption.

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-24 states that:

	a.  an officer may submit a resignation for the good of the service (RFGOS) in lieu of a general court-martial (GCM) when court-martial charges have been preferred against the officer with a view toward trial by GCM or the officer is under a suspended sentence of dismissal;

	b.  the tender of an RFGOS does not preclude or suspend procedures.  A convening authority will not, however, take action on the findings and sentence in such cases until the Secretary of the Army or designee has acted on the RFGOS;

	c.  the officer under court-martial charges or under investigation with a view toward court-martial will be retained on active duty until final disposition of the charges or investigation or until the officer's RFGOS is approved;

	d.  the commander will ensure the RFGOS is voluntary and that applicants are provided the opportunity to consult with legally-qualified counsel who is a member of the Judge Advocate General's Corps or a civilian counsel retained by the officer at his/her own expense and allowed a reasonable period of time to consider requesting an RFGOS;

	e.  an RFGOS will be expeditiously processed.  Court-martial proceedings may be continued until action by the convening authority on the findings and sentence of the court.  A convening authority will not take action in a case until the Secretary of the Army or designee acts on the RFGOS; and

	f.  an officer separated under this paragraph normally receives a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's voluntary resignation in lieu of trial by court-martial was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would to jeopardize his rights.

2.  In fact, the general under honorable conditions characterization of service was lenient considering that the normal characterization of service for an RFGOS is under other than honorable conditions.  The applicant's misconduct diminished the character of his service below that warranting a fully HD.

3.  Finally, while the applicant's post-service conduct has been excellent, as evidenced by his sobriety and personal accomplishments, it is insufficient to warrant the requested relief.  Accordingly, there is no basis upon which to grant the requested relief in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____X____  ____X____  ___X_____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.



      ____________X_____________
                 CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100021064



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100021064



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1