Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2011/01/18	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states:  "The last few months in my time of service does not and should not holistically represent my career as an officer.  My progression of OER's should adequately demonstrate this fact.  I ask the board to consider my 4 years as a model cadet at West Point in its decision for my upgrade.  I regretfully prioritized personal situations back CONUS over my duty obligations in Korea.  I also had a considerable personality conflict with my direct rater.  Unfortunately, when I realized my self-destructive behavior, I was not afforded another chance.  I was shuffled through staff positions, but I really wanted a chance to lead a platoon and/or company.  I thought this was a rash decision on the Army's part - especially when I volunteered to stay in.  Finally, I thank the board for its consideration in the matter.  Please know that I am not requesting an upgrade for opportunistic reasons.  I have yet to face discrimination in the job market, when it comes to my type of discharge.  My request is far more personal and self-reflective."

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: 061109
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 070209   Chapter: 4-2b    AR: 600-8-24
Reason: Unacceptable Conduct	   RE:     SPD: JNC   Unit/Location: USA ADA Liaison, Team 8, Yongsan, Korea 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 051221, AWOL (051006-051011), with intent to deceive provided a false statement (051012), forfeiture of $1,000 for two months (GO)

061101, failed to report (060817), AWOL two times (060818-060820, 061018-061019), disobeyed a lawful order from a superior commissioned officer (060820), dereliction of duty (060826), forfeiture of $1,500 per month for two months (GO)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  22
Current ENL Date: 030531    Current ENL Term: NIF Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	03 Yrs, 08Mos, 09Days ?????
Total Service:  		03 Yrs, 08Mos, 09Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: O-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: MI/35D/All Sources Intelligence   GT: NA   EDU: College Degree   Overseas: Korea   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM, NDSM, KDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Los Angeles, CA
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 6 July 2007, the applicant was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraphs 4-2b and 4-24a(1), AR 600-8-24, by reason of misconduct, moral or professional dereliction. 
        
       The applicant was directed to show cause for retention in the Army after receiving a General Officer Article 15 on 21 December 2005 for absence without leave, and false official statement.  On 1 November 2006, he received another General Officer Article 15 for failure to report to his place of duty, two specifications of absence without leave, willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer and for dereliction of duty.  He consistently and intentionally neglected his duties and failed to perform them in an acceptable manner. He ignored multiple developmental counseling’s and engaged in a deliberate pattern of unacceptable duty performance including failure to follow instructions, absence without leave, disobeying orders, and lack of discipline and initiative. On 29 August he was relieved from his duties because he was repeatedly late for work, was absent from his duty location for lengthy periods of time, his duty performance was poor, and he made little or no effort to make a contribution to the mission. His poor standard of conduct and his unacceptable behavior had an adverse impact on the Soldiers around him and necessitated his relief. His downward trend in overall duty performance resulted in an unacceptable level of efficiency.  He was advised that he could submit a voluntary resignation in lieu of elimination or submit a rebuttal.    The major commander recommended separation from the Army with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.
       
       The applicant’s election of rights or rebuttal statement is not contained in the record and the analyst presumed government regularity in the discharge process.
       
       The Department of the Army Ad-Hoc Review Board reviewed the resignation in lieu of elimination based on misconduct, moral, or professional dereliction submitted its recommendation as required.
       
       On 8 January 2007, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) reviewed the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.    

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       Army Regulation 600-8-24 sets forth the basic authority for officer transfers and discharges.  Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for eliminating an officer from the Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interest of national security.  AR 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 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 no deviation is authorized.

       c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:  
       After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records and the issues he submitted, the analyst determined that the evidence was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of the discharge under review.  
       
       The applicant’s 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.  By his misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  
       
       The applicant provided no corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.  
       
       The applicant contends that he had good service, had a personality conflict with his rater, and was not given another chance and now suffers from discrimination in the job market.  The analyst acknowledges the applicant’s in-service accomplishments and considered the quality of his service during the initial portion of the period under review.  However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge.  The applicant’s service was marred by two General Officer Articles 15 for multiple incidents of misconduct and conduct unbecoming an officer.  
       
       Moreover, the analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  
       
       Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue about being discriminated in the job market as a result of the discharge he received.  However, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.
       
       Therefore, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board that relief.

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 31 August 2011         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: None

VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment 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: NA
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA




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 AR20110001145
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages