IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 17 October 2013
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130003507
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 26 April 2012 U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) general discharge to an honorable discharge.
2. He states he feels his discharge should be upgraded for the following reasons:
a. The USAR involuntarily separated him without cause and wrongly stated that he committed a moral dereliction or that he was charged with conduct unbecoming an officer during his time as an active duty Regular Army (RA) officer.
b. This is not true and he received an honorable discharge from the RA. If he had any charges or moral dereliction or conduct unbecoming an officer, then he would not have received an honorable discharge on 17 October 2006.
c. Without an honorable discharge from the RA, he would not have been allowed to volunteer for and continue with his service for over 6 years in the USAR.
d. The response by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for case number AR20120009772 listed on paragraph IV (Soldier's Overall Record), Current Enlistment Date: 081017. This entry is incorrect. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was transferred to the Reserve after completing active duty status as an RA officer. Since he served 7 years in the Army National Guard (ARNG) as an enlisted Soldier and over 7 years as an officer in the RA, he had no further Military Service Obligation. Therefore, he volunteered on his own free will to continue his service to the Army in the USAR, and he took his oath of office on 18 October 2006, 1 day after he received an honorable discharge from the RA.
e. His time in the USAR from 18 October 2006 to his discharge in 2012 was served honorably as is reflected in his officer evaluation reports (OERs). There was nothing in his USAR file that ever reflected poor performance; in fact, he received all good OERs. Therefore, the USAR acted without merit in involuntarily separating him and giving him a general discharge under honorable conditions.
f. He should have been allowed to continue to serve, or he should have been allowed to retire or be medically separated since he has a 50% disabled combat veteran rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
g. The USAR failed to provide a legal basis for initiating and following through with actions to involuntarily separate him under Army Regulation 135-175 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve - Separation of Officers), since he did not meet any definition specified in that regulation to warrant a general under honorable conditions discharge. His service during his time in the USAR was honorable as is reflected in his OERs.
h. If the USAR is questioning his time in the RA from 1999-2006, then it made a mistake because he received an honorable discharge from that period of service. Therefore, he should either be reinstated with back pay and credited for time in service or he should be allowed to retire immediately or medically retire/ separate with an honorable discharge as a result of this unwarranted negative action by the USAR. If separated, he should also be given separation pay for which he is entitled when involuntarily separated from the service
i. The ADRB analyst is wrong in stating that the burden of proof is on him to prove that the USAR acted wrongly or to provide reasons why the USAR acted as such. He believes he has provided evidence that clearly shows the USAR acted unjustly towards him through the OERs he received while in the USAR, and that the USAR made wrong and unjust statements claiming he committed any moral dereliction or was charged with conduct unbecoming an officer. There is nothing in his file suggesting any such action during his time in the USAR and he believes the officers of the board should be reprimanded for their actions in tarnishing the record of a good officer.
3. He provides copies of:
* his 17 January 2013 letter to the ADRB
* Record of Proceedings, ADRB Case Number AR20120009772
* his 11 October 2006 DA Form 71 (Oath of Office Military Personnel)
* his 17 October DD Form 214
* a 27 October 2006 Military Intelligence Augmentation Detachment welcome letter
* a 12 May 1999 National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service)
* several DA Forms 67-9 (OERs) from 4 October 2006 through 13 August 2011
* a 28 August 2012 VA letter
* his 30 March 2012 general discharge order from the USAR
* several military personnel education and training documents from
21 November 2003 to 14 January 2013
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant served on active duty as an RA officer for over 7 years and was discharged as a captain (CPT) on 17 October 2006. He accepted a USAR appointment as a CPT effective 17 October 2006.
2. His record contains copies of:
a. A 27 March 2012 U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) memorandum, subject: Involuntary Separation Board Results, in which the applicant was notified that the Field Board of Inquiry held on 19 October 2010 recommended he be separated from the USAR and issued a general discharge effective 30 days from the date of the letter.
b. A 30 March 2012 AHRC-OPNPR10-99 Orders D-03-204971, HRC showing his general discharge from the USAR effective 26 April 2012.
3. The complete facts and circumstances of his discharge from the USAR are not contained in the available record.
4. On 10 January 2013, the ADRB denied his request for a change in the character and/or reason for his discharge. The ADRB determined that he had been properly and equitably discharged.
5. The applicant provides his letter to the ADRB in which he states that his USAR and RA service have been honorable. He received all good OERs from the time he entered the USAR following his discharge for the RA and there is nothing in his USAR file that reflects any poor performance or misconduct.
6. The applicant's USAR discharge processing documents are not available. However, a 27 March 2012 HRC memorandum notified him that a Field Board of Inquiry held on 19 October 2010 recommended he be separated from the USAR and issued a general discharge and 30 March 2012 HRC orders show he was discharged accordingly.
7. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record; it is not an investigative body. The regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not available. However, an HRC memorandum and orders show he received a general discharge as a result of a recommendation from a Field Board of Inquiry conducted on 19 October 2010.
2. The applicant did not provide any evidence showing the Field Board of Inquiry acted unjustly or in error. There is no evidence from his period of USAR service to support the applicant's request for an upgrade of his USAR discharge from general to honorable.
3. The regulations governing the Board's operation require the presumption that the discharge process was conducted in accordance with applicable laws and regulations unless the applicant can provide evidence to overcome that presumption.
4. In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant's 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) AR20120021247
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130003507
5
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019585
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. He stated under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), you (the Group Commander) are required to initiate a separation request for actions committed by a WO that preclude the WO from performing in his MOS. On 14 May 2014, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request to correct his DD Form 214 to show he was discharged due to loss of his MOS.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007917
The applicant requests a change of his reason for discharge and separation code. On 13 February 2013, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the case and denied the applicant's request to change the reason for separation. * a relief for cause OER * adverse information filed in the Army Military Human Resource Record (formerly known as the Official Military Personnel File) in accordance with Army Regulation 60037 c. An officer recommended for elimination by a Board of Inquiry will have...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012798
It also shows the applicant was to be discharged from the service with an honorable characterization of service; the authority for separation was the message, dated 13 March 2014, subject: Officer Elimination Case, and AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b, for misconduct and moral or professional dereliction of duty; and the SPD Code to be issued was "JNC." This review reveals, in pertinent part, the following individuals testified: * Lieutenant Colonel S____ D. B____, Commander, 369th Signal...
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 | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015392
The applicant requests, in effect, reversal of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (DASA) (Review Boards (RB)) decision to place him on the Retired List in the rank/pay grade of sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7 and allow him to retire in the rank of captain (CPT)/O-3. The applicant provides the following as evidence: * self-authored Memorandum for Record (MFR), dated 30 April 2014 * a memorandum from his Defense Counsel, CPT B.W., dated 10 May 2014, to the Assistant Secretary, Manpower...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130021612
c. He was never referred for medical evaluation or a physical disability board review prior to being discharged from the Regular Army in 2006 or from the USAR in 2012, even though he was rated at 30%, 40%, 50%, 70%, and 80% while serving in the USAR. His complete service medical records are not available for review with this case. None of the applicant's medical records are available for review with this case.
ARMY | DRB | CY2012 | AR20120020002
Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 November 1995 and was discharged 9 May 2009. On 30 March 2012, the intermediate commander recommended the applicant elimination under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2(a) for substandard performance of duty and under paragraph 4-2(b) for misconduct and moral or professional dereliction based on the applicant's failure to exercise necessary leadership, acts of...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130014021
The applicant requests to upgrade the characterization of his service from general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable, and to change the narrative reason for his discharge. The Board recommended separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. A general under honorable conditions characterization of service will normally be issued to an officer when the officers military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130000895
On 15 December 2011, the Army Review Boards Agency requested the BOI amend its findings in order to provide specific relevant conduct to support the basis for separation. On 13 March 2012, the Army Board of Review recommended the applicants elimination from the Army with issuance of a general, under honorable conditions discharge. A separation under honorable conditions will normally be appropriate when an officer submits an unqualified resignation or a request for relief from active duty...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080000755
Specifically, he presents the following arguments: a. he was notified in the elimination memorandum that if he elected to submit his resignation or request discharge in lieu of elimination, he could be eligible for separation pay and could consult with his legal advisor and his finance and accounting office concerning entitlement to separation pay; b. he acknowledged notification of initiation of elimination action against him and requested resignation from the Army as well as a hearing by a...