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