Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 071130	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: In Iraq, I was medically evacuated out of country do to suicidal ideation.  While at Walter Reed, the doctors put me on profile not to go back to country for a year and told me I could get a medical discharge if I wanted it.  I decided not to have one.  Upon arriving at Fort Bragg I returned to duty with the 56th Medical Evacuation Battalion.  I continued to work on rear detachment responsibilities and prepare my unit for upcoming inspections.   Additionally, I coordinated and supervised logistical support for the deployment and redeployment of units throughout the 44th Medical Command.  In November of 2005 my unit returned to Fort Bragg and began refit and retraining.  I continued my duties helping my command with battalion logistics equipment analysis for two units undergoing transformation.  Other duties included identifying equipment shortages and preparing briefings for the MEDCOM Staff and Commanding General.
In June of 2006 I received word that I would be discharged within fourteen days.  This came as a total complete shock. There were zero negative counseling sessions, no indication of dissatisfaction, or anything to indicate this was coming. Additionally, my chain of command was surprised by this news as well.  To this date there has been no 
explanation for this discharge or opportunity to request an official review.  The most confusing issues that surround this discharge are the events that immediately preceded my discharge.  On June the 14th I received an Army Achievement Medal from my unit signed through the Battalion Commander praising my work while assigned to the 56th
 MEDEVAC Bn.  Additionally, in April of 2006 I received an exceptional OER for the prior rating period.  This OER included nothing but commendations for the duty performance during this rating period.

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: 051214
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 060623   Chapter: 4-2b, 4-24a (1)      AR: 600-8-24
Reason: Unacceptable Conduct	   RE:     SPD: BNC   Unit/Location: HHD, 32nd MLB (Rear), Fort Bragg, NC 

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: 040712    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 11Mos, 12Days ?????
Total Service:  		05 Yrs, 07Mos, 14Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	USARCG (ROTC Cadet)-001110-040711/NA
Highest Grade: 0-1		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 67B Laboratory Science   GT: NA   EDU: BS Laboratory Science   Overseas: Southwest Asia   Combat: Iraq (041126-050430)
Decorations/Awards: AAM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR, ARCOTR, 

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Fayetteville, NC
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       Evidence of record shows that on 14 December 2005, the applicant was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2a (6), (13) and (14) by reason of substandard performance of duty.  The applicant was directed to show cause for his retention on active duty for characteristic disorders to include inability to or unwillingness to expend effort, redeployed from OIF due to failure to perform his duties, upon return he was subsequently unable to adjust to work environment at the 44th  Medical Command G-3 and self referred to Womack Army Medical Center for mental health care, and a mental health evaluation dated 4 August 2005, recommended discharge due to present state of emotional and/or behavioral dysfunction which is of such severity that his ability to perform his military duties was significantly impairedy.  He was advised that he could submit a voluntary resignation in lieu of elimination or submit a written rebuttal providing any pertinent facts concerning his elimination.  On 2 February 2006, the applicant submitted his rebuttal to initiation of elimination from active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4.  On 11 April 2006, the Commander, Headquarters,18th Airborne Corp, Fort Bragg, NC, recommended approval of the discharge under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2a (6), (13) and (14) with issuance of a honorable discharge.  The Ad Hoc Review Board met, and on 10 May 2006, 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 honorable.

       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 careful review of all the applicant's military records for the term of service under review, the issues and documents he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit a change to the narrative reason for discharge on the applicant's DD Form 214.  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, unacceptable conduct with a characterization of service of  honorable.  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct.  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.  Furthermore the analyst noted the applicant's issue,  the narrative reason for separation is governed by specific directives.  The applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, Paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200.  The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Unacceptable Conduct", the separation code is "BNC."  Army Regulation 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, separation code, entered in block 26, 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 that no deviation is authorized.  There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation.  Additionally, 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.  In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief.
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
        

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 15 October 2008         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: NA

VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the term of service under review and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the narrative reason for separation is inequitable.  Accordingly, the Board voted to administratively change the applicant's DD Form 214, block 28, narrative reason for separation to "Substandard Performance"  and block 26 separation code to "JHK."  Except for the foregoing modification to the applicant's narrative reason for separation, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable.
        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 0    No change 0
Reason -     Change 5    No change 0
(Board member names available upon request)
								         EDGAR J. YANGER			 
								         Colonel, U.S. Army
								         President, Army Discharge Review Board
Issue a new DD Form 214  					
Change Characterization to: 			         
Change Reason to: "Substandard Performance" with the corresponding separation code of "JHK"
Other: NA										
RE Code: 									 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: None
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070017675
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages