IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  12 July 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100030239 


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 to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states he served overseas in Bosnia-Herzegovina, he was awarded five service ribbons, and he attained the rank of first lieutenant (promotable).  He adds that his separation was in error and unjust.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentary evidence in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer in the U.S. Army in the rank of second lieutenant on 8 May 1999.  He was ordered to active duty on 9 June 1999.

2.  Upon completion of training he was assigned to the Combat Engineer Battalion, Fort Stewart, GA.  He served in support of Operation Joint Forge in Bosnia-Herzegovina from 28 September 2000 to 1 April 2001.

3.  On 7 December 2001, the applicant's commander initiated action to notify the applicant that he was required to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), 


paragraphs 4-2b(5) & (8) and 4-2c(1), because of his acts of personal misconduct involving incapacitation for duty by reason of intoxication, conduct unbecoming an officer, and nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

	a.  The reasons for his proposed action for elimination were the applicant:

		(1)  failed to conform to prescribed standards of military deportment and he was issued a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) on
8 September 2000 for refusing to take a breathalyzer test on 1 September 2000;

		(2)  failed to properly perform assignments commensurate with an officer's grade and experience in that he:

		(a)  was chronically late and/or absent from his place of duty in August 2001 and received a written reprimand on 2 October 2001;

		(b)  failed to report for formations and missed other duty obligations from 3-5 October 2001;

		(c)  failed to appear for physical training (PT) formation and his initial Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Counseling (ADAPCP) screening on
12 October 2001;

		(d)  was 20 minutes late for an ADAPCP appointment and failed to appear as ordered for PT formation on 15 October 2001;

		(e)  was absent and failed to perform staff duty officer duties on
25 November 2001; and

		(3)  received punishment under the Article 15, UCMJ on 21 November 2001, for being incapacitated for duty by reason of intoxication and conduct unbecoming an officer.

   b.  The commander advised the applicant of his rights, options, and the separation procedures involved.  The applicant had 30 calendar days to submit a rebuttal statement, request appearance before a Board of Inquiry, or submit his resignation in lieu of elimination.  The commander also advised him he was being recommended for a general discharge.

	c.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification on 11 December 2001.

4.  On 22 February 2002, the applicant submitted a rebuttal to the commander's recommendation of elimination action.  He did not refute the reasons for the commander's action, but maintained his consistent progress since the misconduct warranted his retention.  He expressed his desire and will to make the necessary effort to take control of his alcohol abuse.  He noted he was
84 days sober, attending weekly ADAPCP meetings, attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings twice a week, and under supervised use of Antabuse.
He asked for the opportunity to continue to serve as an officer in the U.S. Army.

5.  The Commanding General, 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Stewart, GA, noted that the applicant had failed to make an election during the allotted
30 days.  He also noted the applicant requested retention and that he had considered that request.  Despite the applicant's claims he was being rehabilitated, he had continued to disobey orders and failed to report for normal duties.  The commander recommended the applicant be discharged with his service characterized as under honorable conditions.

6.  On 19 April 2002, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the applicant's elimination case based on misconduct, moral, or professional dereliction and directed the applicant be separated with a General Discharge Certificate.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 9 May 2002.

7.  The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged on 9 May 2002 in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b, based on unacceptable conduct with his service characterized as under honorable conditions (general).

	a.  He completed 2 years, 11 months, and 1 day of net active service during this period.

	b.  He was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Army Service Ribbon, and North Atlantic Treaty Organization Medal.

8.  On 17 November 2008, the applicant submitted a request for upgrade of his discharge to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB).  On 3 December 2009, after careful review of his application, military records, and other available evidence, the ADRB denied his request.  He was accordingly notified of the ADRB's decision.



9.  Army Regulation 600-8-24, in effect at the time, prescribes officer transfers from active duty to the Reserve Component and discharge functions for all officers on active duty for 30 days or more.  Chapter 4 (Eliminations), paragraph 4-2 (Reasons for elimination) provides that elimination action may or will be initiated for substandard performance of duty; misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interests of national security; and derogatory information.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-24 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 for an officer.  An officer will normally receive an under honorable conditions characterization of service when the officer's military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends his general discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge based on his record of service because his discharge was in error and unjust.

2.  Records show the applicant served overseas in Bosnia-Herzegovina for approximately 6 months, he attained the rank of first lieutenant, and he was awarded four service medals.  There is no evidence he was awarded any individual decorations for heroism, meritorious achievement, or meritorious service during the period of service under review.

3.  The applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b, for unacceptable conduct was administratively correct.  All requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Moreover, the offenses that led to his discharge far outweighed his overall record of service at the time of his discharge.  Considering all the facts of the case, the characterization of service directed was appropriate and equitable.

4.  The evidence of record shows the applicant received punishment under Article 15, UCMJ; he received a written reprimand and a GOMOR; and he failed to properly perform assignments commensurate with his grade by failing to report for formations and duty obligations on numerous occasions.  Therefore, the applicant's service during the period under review clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army officers and he is not entitled to an honorable discharge.



5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the requested relief.

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 that 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)                                         AR20100030239



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100030239



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1