IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 2 February 2012
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110015302
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 his general discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
2. The applicant states, in effect, while on active duty he began to experience extreme knee pain and was unable to pass the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT). However, his commander failed to believe that he was experiencing the pain and recommended immediate discharge. He also states he began to experience sleep problems while in Iraq and attributed it to the environment. He did not seek treatment until he left active duty. He was diagnosed with severe sleep apnea which contributed to his problems such as failure to appear and poor judgment. He claims his GD does not accurately reflect his overall duty performance; he would like his entire record reviewed and consideration of the issues he raises which he believes supports an upgrade of his discharge.
3. The applicant provides a self-authored statement and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability rating decisions in support of his application.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The record shows the applicant was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Regular Army, on 7 August 2003, and was promoted to first lieutenant on 21 July 2005.
2. On 25 January 2007, while serving in Iraq, the applicant received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) for behavior and actions that brought discredit upon him, his unit, and the U.S. Army.
3. The applicants record is void of any indication that he suffered from any disqualifying medical or mental condition that would have supported separation processing through medical channels.
4. On 24 April 2007, the acting commanding general (CG) of the 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, Kansas, notified the applicant he was required to show cause for retention on active duty for apathy and unwillingness to expend effort, conduct unbecoming of an officer, and for adverse information filed in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The acting CG stated his action was based on the following specific reasons for elimination:
a. Failing two APFT's and failing to meet the weight/body fat standard over a period of 13 months;
b. Conduct unbecoming of an officer for multiple offenses of failure to repair in 2004;
c. Wrongful use of government equipment, specifically possessing and viewing pornography on several government computers in violation of General Order Number 1 between April and December 2006 while deployed to Iraq; and
d. Adverse and derogatory information filed in his OMPF.
5. In the show cause memorandum, the acting CG notified the applicant he intended to recommend the issuance of a GD. He further informed the applicant that before he took any action he would consider all written comments or a rebuttal that the applicant may submit.
6. On 24 May 2007, the applicant submitted a rebuttal to the notice of intent to separate. He expressed his desire to continue serving and indicated he was not in compliance with the APFT and height and weight standards. He also admitted to the conduct unbecoming allegation stating it was stupid for him to have pornography on his computer. He finally stated regarding his failure to repair issues he had addressed them and successfully worked to overcome the problem. He stated he had not missed a formation or failed to be at his place of duty since early 2004, and he had been promoted to first lieutenant.
7. On 30 May 2007, the CG, 1st Infantry Division, confirmed he had carefully considered all the evidence collected against the applicant, including his rebuttal matters, and he had determined elimination was warranted. He recommended the applicant receive a GD.
8. On 2 July 2007, the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards), subsequent to review of the applicants case by the Department of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board, determined the applicant should be discharged from the United States Army with a GD. On 12 August 2007, the applicant was discharged accordingly.
9. On 13 August 2008, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), after carefully considering the applicants entire military record and the issues he raised, determined the applicants discharge was proper and equitable and voted to deny his request for an upgrade of his discharge and to change the narrative reason for his separation.
10. The applicant provides a VA Rating Decision, dated 13 December 2007, which granted him service connection for disabilities at the following rates:
* psychiatric disorder, to include anxiety and depression, 30 percent
* degenerative joint disease of the lumbosacral spine, 10 percent
* left knee disorder to include patellofemoral pain syndrome, 0 percent
11. Army Regulation 600-8-24 sets forth the basic authority for officer transfers and discharges. Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedures for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interest of national security.
12. 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 applicants contention that his GD should be upgrade to an HD based on his medical problems has been carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.
2. The evidence of record confirms the applicants elimination processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the applicants rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.
3. The applicants GOMOR and the show cause memorandum prepared by his CG clearly show his misconduct diminished the overall qualify of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. Further, the record is void of any indication that the medical problems raised by the applicant supported his separation processing through medical channels, or that he had medical problems that were a major contributing factor to the misconduct that resulted in his discharge. As a result, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support 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) AR20110015302
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110015302
4
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008998
A review of the applicants official records shows that after receiving the second referred OER, the applicant received three evaluations during the period of 20091001 20120309. Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfer and Discharges) serves as the authority for the transfer and discharge of Army officer personnel. During that period, he received maximum ratings on his OERs as well as recommendation for promotion.
ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070013580
Applicant Name: ????? On 2 July 2007, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The applicants discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by Army Officers.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050006317C070206
The application submitted in this case is dated 20 April 2005. On 13 March 2000, the CG, 77th RSC approved the findings and recommendations of the officer board of inquiry and forwarded the applicant’s case for final action to the Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR- PERSCOM) with a recommendation for a characterization of UOTHC, under Army Regulation 600-8-24. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015543
The applicant requests a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) be removed from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) (formerly known as the Official Military Personnel File) or transferred to the restricted section of his AMHRR. He indicated that German State Prosecutors and CID did not find any evidence that anyone in his home engaged in criminal conduct, nor did they find any viewable child pornography. The CG made his decision to file the GOMOR in the applicant's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002421
d. In his findings the IO stated he found that, based on the statements from the applicant and her husband, they had a prohibited relationship that began sometime in 2006. e. In his recommended actions the IO stated: (1) Army Regulation (AR) 600-20 (Army Command Policy) does not prohibit marriages between officers and enlisted personnel. d. Paragraph 3-58 states that an OER report is required when an officer or warrant officer is relieved for cause regardless of the rating period involved. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016565
Specifically, counsel argues that: a. the applicant was reluctant to seek treatment for a psychiatric illness because it would have jeopardized his registered nursing credentials; b. the applicants sleep disorder, sleep deprivation, anxiety, and depression, coupled with the illness and ultimate death of his mother, affected his duty performance; c. the applicant had been separated from his spouse and children since 1999 and his divorce was final in 2002; yet, the GOMOR addressed the issue...
ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100014555
Applicant Name: ????? On 15 March 2010, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The applicants 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016076
The applicant requests: a. removal of a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), dated 5 October 2011, from his official military personnel file (OMPF); b. a change of his separation code from "JNC" (misconduct moral or professional dereliction) to a more suitable and less detrimental separation code; and c. a change to his narrative reason for separation. On 20 June 2014, the Army Discharge Review Board by unanimous vote denied the applicant's request to change his narrative reason...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021373
The applicant requests the removal of Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs) covering the periods 20050617 20051115, 20070416 20080331, and 20080401 20090206 from his official records. Counsel requests that the three contested OERs be removed from the applicants official records. The applicant also received a relief for cause OER ending on 15 November 2005 (first contested OER) in which he received a NO rating in Part IV Performance Evaluation Professionalism under Duty. 5.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070012888
This means the applicant had no opportunity to review that information allegedly in the IO's informal investigation and his right to due process was violated because he had a right to review relevant evidence; e. the GOMOR and referred OER were based on the IO's alleged investigation but since no "true" investigation took place, there was no Report of Investigation to which the applicant could respond; f. the applicant did not violate Article 133 of the UCMJ. The CG indicated that he was...