Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2011/04/18	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he requests an upgrade of his discharge to fully honorable.  He contends that his discharge was improper because his reprimand and discharge were based on a faulty misinterpretation of an internship plan.  

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: 100501
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 100616   Chapter: 4-2b     AR: 600-8-24
Reason: Unacceptable Conduct	   RE:     SPD: JNC   Unit/Location: HHC, 4th IN Bde Cbt Tm, APO AE 09354 

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:  23
Current ENL Date: 070526    Current ENL Term: 08 Years  ORB shows current expiration of service agreement as (150526). 
Current ENL Service: 	03  Yrs, 00 Mos, 21 Days ?????
Total Service:  		07  Yrs, 11 Mos, 05 Days block 12e on the DD Form 214 total prior inactive service, is incorrect and should read 03 Yrs, 10 Mos, 26 Days.
Previous Discharges: 	AGR-020712-030629/NA
                                       USAR (Cadet)-030630-070525/NA
Highest Grade: 0-2		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 70B Health Services Admin   GT: NA   EDU: BS (General Law)   Overseas: Southwest Asia   Combat: Afghanistan (090524-100531)
Decorations/Awards: BSM, AAM, NDSM, ACM-W/CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATO MDL, CMB 

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Kettering, MD 
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant stated that he is attending law school; and serves as a youth counselor for inner city high school students through his church's youth outreach program.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 2 April 2010, the applicant was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b(4) and 4-2b(8), AR 600-8-24, by reason of unacceptable conduct.  The applicant was directed to show cause for retention on active duty for the intentional omission or misstatement of fact in official statements or records for the purpose of misrepresentation and conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. He submitted an internship plan to Benedictine University containing information pertaining to his duties that were false and the signature of his battalion surgeon on the document without his knowledge, approval, or authorization (100120); and he informed Ms. CG of Benedictine University, that a formal inquiry into the falsified documents in question concluded that he did not falsify documentation (100228).  
        
       He was advised that he could submit his resignation in lieu of elimination, request discharge in lieu of elimination, or submit a written rebuttal statement.
       
       The applicant voluntarily tendered his resignation under the provisions of Chapter 4,  AR 600-8-24, in lieu of further elimination proceedings.  The applicant was a probationary officer and therefore not entitled to appear before a board of officers (Board of Inquiry).  On 1 May 2010, the Commander, Headquarters, Combined /Joint Task Force 82, APO AE 09354, recommended approval of the applicant's resignation in lieu of elimination under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, AR 600-8-24, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 
       
       On 10 May 2010, 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 received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 2 April 2010, for engaging in fraudulent and dishonest activity (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 the interest of national security.

       c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:  
       After a careful review of all the applicant's military records during the term of service under review, the issues and documents 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’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.  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.  By his misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.
       
       The applicant contends that his discharge was improper because his reprimand and discharge were based on a faulty misinterpretation of an internship plan.  There is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support hiscontention.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant provided any evidence, to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged.  
       
       Further, the analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  
       
             Therefore, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service 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: 22 August 2011         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293, dated (110416); Officer Record Brief (ORB), dated (100307); Memorandum, Initiation of Officer Elimination, three (3) pages, dated (100402); Memorandum, Administrative Reprimand, two (2) pages dated (100402); Memorandum, [ redacted ] University Internship Plan, eighteen (18) pages, dated (100220); Statement of Work, [ redacted ] Clinic Restoration, two (2) pages; E-mail Traffic, four (4) pages, dated (100330); Letter of Recommendation, dated (090915); Afghanistan Health Strategy Coordination Project, forty one (41) pages, dated (090817); Medical Reconstruction & Development Playbook for Afghanistan, 1st Edition, one hundred two (102) pages, dated (090505); Assistance Programs Available, twelve (12) pages, dated (090820). 

VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the term of service under review, hearing his testimony 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 1    No change 4
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 AR20110008319
______________________________________________________________________________

Page 3 of 3 pages