Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2010/12/13	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that she requests an upgrade of her discharge to fully honorable and a change to the separation (SPD) code.  She contends that her discharge was wrong because it was based on one incident in 6 years of service with no other adverse action.  She further contends being sexually harassed.  She desires to join the reserves or National Guard and finish her ten (10) years of service to her country.

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: 090514
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 090805   Chapter: 4-2b      AR: 635-200
Reason: Unacceptable Conduct	   RE:     SPD: JNC   Unit/Location: U.S. Army Medical Department Activity, Fort Leonard Wood, MO 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  35
Current ENL Date: 030814/OAD    Current ENL Term: 04 Years  additional active duty service obligation (ADSO) of three (3) years.
Current ENL Service: 	05  Yrs, 11 Mos, 22 Days ?????
Total Service:  		09  Yrs, 06 Mos, 07 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	USN-910116-920521/HD
                                       USN-920522-940731/HD
Highest Grade: O-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 66H M5 Medical/Surgical Nurse   GT: NA   EDU: BS (Nursing)   Overseas: Southwest Asia   Combat: Iraq (041124-051123)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM-2, NDSM-2, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, MUC, ASUA 

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  East Wenatchee, WA 
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 23 March 2009, the applicant was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraphs 4-2a and 4-2b, AR 600-8-24, by reason of substandard performance of duty and misconduct.  The applicant was directed to show cause for retention on active duty by reason of substandard performance of duty for failing to properly perform assignments commensurate with her grade and experience and/or failing to exercise necessary leadership expected of an officer of her grade, and refusing to use her chain of command for any reason between (081215-090318): acts of personal misconduct and/or conduct unbecoming an officer by engaging in an adulterous sexual relationship with a married man between (080501-080820); advising another female CPT in her section that it was alright to date noncommissioned officers as long as no one finds out (080615); making a false official statement to a superior officer (071024); abandoning her place of duty on several occasions between (080201-080820); intentional neglect of/or failing to perform her duties by giving a patient medication and failing to mark it on the patient's medical chart between (080701-080731); failing to inform the ER staff about an EO sensing session the next day (080724); willfully disobeying a lawful order from a MAJ to personally contact each ER staff member regarding the makeup EO sensing session (080725); and mismanagement of her  personal affairs that unfavorably affected her performance of duty by having a complete emotional breakdown following a recent failed romantic relationship rendering her unable to perform her duties (080615).  She was advised that she could prepare a written statement, submit a written rebuttal statement, submit her resignation in lieu of further elimination, request discharge in lieu of further elimination, or apply for retirement in lieu of further elimination.
         
       On 8 May 2009, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of Chapter 4,  AR 600-8-24, in lieu of further elimination proceedings.  The applicant voluntarily waived consideration of her case by a board of officers (Board of Inquiry), contingent upon her receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions.  On 14 May 2009, the Commander, U.S. Army  Maneuver Support Center and Fort Leonard Wood, Fort Leonard Wood, MO, recommended approval of the applicant's separation under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, AR 600-8-24, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 
       
       On 17 July 2009, 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 general, under honorable conditions.
       
       The applicant's record contains a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 23 March 2009, for engaging in numerous acts of personal misconduct, conduct unbecoming an officer, mismanagement of personal affairs, and substandard duty performance, (Administrative). 

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       Army Regulation 600-8-24 sets for the basic authority for Officer Transfers and discharges.  Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the eliminating of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in 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 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 of unacceptable conduct, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  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.  By her misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. 
       
       The applicant requested a change to the separation (SPD) code.  The narrative reason for separation is governed by specific directives.  The applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b,    AR 600-8-24.  The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Unacceptable Conduct" and the separation code is "JNC."  
       
       Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be entered exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes.  The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized.  
       
       
       
       The applicant contends that her discharge was wrong because it was based on one incident in 6 years of service with no other adverse action.  The analyst concluded that the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  
       
       Having examined all the circumstances, the analyst determined that the applicant’s numerous incidents substandard performance of duty, misconduct, and mismanagement of personal affairs did indeed adversely affect the quality of her service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant’s service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.
       
       The applicant further contends that she was sexually harassed.  Although the applicant alleges that she was a victim of sexual harassment during her military service, there is no evidence in her military records and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence supporting this contention.  Therefore, this argument is not sufficient to support her request for an upgrade of her discharge.
       
       The applicant desires to join the reserves or National Guard and finish her ten (10) years of service to her country.  If the applicant desires to reenlist, she should contact the local recruiter to determine her eligibility to reenlist.  Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time.
       
       Therefore, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge, the characterization of service to include the separation (SPD) code 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: 21 September 2011         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293, dated (101116); two (2) Applicant's Statements, two (2) pages, 4 (four) pages; five (5) DA Forms 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report), dated (090521), (080905), (051129), (041129), (040317); three (3) DA Forms 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), dated (071025), (070622), (060519); six (6) Character/Support Statements, dated (101008), (100817), (undated), (090126), (090210), (090210); and E-mail traffic, two (2) pages, dated (100903), (081011).  

VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the term of service 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 0    No change 5
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)
								         EDGAR J. YANGER			 
								         Colonel, U.S. Army
X.  Board Action Directed					         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




































Legend:
AWOL    	Absent Without Leave		GCM   General Court Martial	NA   Not applicable			SCM	Summary Court Martial
BCD   	Bad Conduct Discharge	GD      General Discharge	NIF   Not in the file			SPCM	Special Court Martial
CG 	Company Grade Article 15	HD      Honorable Discharge	OAD   Ordered to Active Duty		UNC	Uncharacterized Discharge  
DD 	Dishonorable Discharge	HS       High School Graduate	OMPF   Official Military Personnel File	UOTH  	Under Other Than Honorable 
FG	Field Grade Article 15		IADT   Initial Active Duty Training	RE     Reentry Code				Conditions 

ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20100029828
______________________________________________________________________________

Page 4 of 4 pages