IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  20 August 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130022337 


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 correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) by changing the narrative reason for separation to show he was separated because he lost his military occupational specialty (MOS).

2.  The applicant states he was punished for an offense that resulted in him losing his MOS.  Consequently, he was discharged because he lost his MOS.

3.  The applicant provides copies of:

* DD Form 214 ending on 10 February 1995 and 11 December 2008
* National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), effective 24 June 1997
* DD Forms 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document - Armed Forces of the United States), dated 25 June 1997, 13 September 2001, 28 October 2003, and 28 December 2005
* Two DA Forms 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report) for the period February 2007 through October 2008
* Memorandum, Appointment as a Reserve Warrant Officer, dated            12 December 2008 with the applicant's statement of understanding and exception to policy for appointment with interim security clearance
* DA Form 71 (Oath of Office - Military Personnel), dated 12 December 2008
* Four DA Forms 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) for the periods December 2008 through 2 November 2012, with enclosures
* Certificate for award of the Meritorious Service Medal, dated 31 December 2009
* Certificate of Achievement, dated 3 June 2010
* Case Log, 2 of 3 pages, dated 2011
* General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), rebuttal and support recommendation, dated in August and September 2011
* The Agent Accreditation Review Board (ARB) Proceedings, dated 
30 January 2012 (17 pages)
* The ARB Recommendation, dated 23 March 2012
* A DA Form 7279 (Equal Opportunity Complaint Form), dated 24 October 2012 and found unsubstantiated on 14 February 2013 (73 pages)
* Letter from the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID), dated 
1 March 2013
* Memorandum from the applicant to the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, dated 12 March 2013
* Application to the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB), dated 21 March 2013
* DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers), dated 7 September 2012 (24 pages)

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  After having had prior enlisted service, on 12 December 2008 the applicant was appointed as a CID Special Agent Reserve warrant officer and was immediately called to active duty.

2.  On 18 August 2011, the applicant received a GOMOR for engaging in an adulterous sexual relationship and for dereliction in the performance of his duties.  This GOMOR was administrative not as a result of any punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

3.  The applicant received a relief for cause OER ending on 2 November 2011 for unsatisfactory performance as a team chief in the 32nd Military Police Detachment.  His senior rater stated the applicant had no potential for further service in his career field due to revocation of his credentials.

4.  On 30 January 2012, an ARB convened to determine whether the applicant had violated certain regulatory provisions; whether such violations, if they occurred were a basis for elimination from the CID program; and whether he should be retained or eliminated.

	a.  By unanimous vote, the ARB agreed the applicant's actions did violate certain regulatory provisions concerning indiscretion, disaffection, breach of discipline, or abuse of privilege that could have adversely affected the performance of criminal investigative duties and he lacked the character or moral integrity necessary for the proper performance of criminal investigative or other CID program duties.

	b.  By a 2 to 1 vote, the ARB recommended the applicant be retained in the CID program and placed on a 2-year probationary period.

5.  On 7 September 2012, an investigative board met to consider all evidence concerning allegations against the applicant of personal misconduct, moral and/or professional.

	a.  The board determined that a preponderance of the evidence supported a finding that the applicant had engaged in acts of personal misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and conduct unbecoming an officer by engaging in an adulterous sexual relationship with a woman who was not his wife.

	b.  The board further determined that a preponderance of the evidence supported a finding that the applicant had failed to ensure agents under his authority understood the correct procedures for conducting drug suppression operations against civilian subjects.

	c.  The board recommended that the applicant be eliminated from the U.S. Army for misconduct and moral or professional dereliction, with an honorable characterization of service.

6.  On 8 April 2013, the Department of the Army Board of Review for Eliminations recommended the applicant be involuntarily eliminated from the U.S. Army based on misconduct and moral or professional dereliction, with an Honorable characterization of service.  On 18 April 2013, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation.

7.  On 17 June 2013, the applicant was accordingly discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 2-4b with a separation program designator (SPD) code of JNC.  He had completed more than 16 years of creditable active service.  His DD Form 214 shows he received an honorable characterization of service and was separated due to unacceptable conduct.

8.  On 14 May 2014, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) considered the applicant's request to show he was discharged due to not having an MOS.  The ADRB found the applicant's discharge to be proper and equitable and denied his request.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers), paragraph 4-2b, provides that misconduct includes conduct or actions that result in the loss of a professional status, such as withdrawal, suspension or abandonment of professional license, endorsement, or certification that is directly connected with or is necessary for the performance of one's military duties.

10.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Document), as then in effect, states that the entry in item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) and in item 26 (Separation Code) will be exactly as listed in Tables 2-2 or 2-3 of Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes).  The SPD code of JNC is to be used when the authority for separation is Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b, and requires the Narrative Reason to show "Unacceptable Conduct."  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his DD Form 214 should be corrected by changing the narrative reason for separation to show he was discharged because he lost his MOS.  He argues that he was punished for an offense that resulted in him losing his MOS.  Consequently, he was discharged because he lost his MOS.

2.  The available evidence shows the applicant was discharged from the service due to misconduct.

3.  The applicant lost his MOS because he failed to maintain acceptable standards of moral and/or professional conduct required for the performance of a CID agent.  Therefore, in accordance with the governing regulation the correct narrative reason for separation was entered on his DD Form 214.

4.  The evidence further shows the applicant was given a GOMOR as an administrative action, and not as punishment.  There is no evidence showing he received either nonjudicial punishment or court-martial action for his acts of misconduct.

5.  There is no evidence of error or injustice in this case.

6.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant's request should be denied.



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)                                         AR20130022337



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130022337



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1