Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/01/14	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states in effect:  "I would like my discharge changed because I feel I was unjustly forced out of the Army. A civilian, Mr. which I dated while stationed in Japan wrote several false statements against me. At the time that Mr. wrote his statements we were having serious relationship problems but nothing that justified him contacting my command. The USACHPPM-PAC Commander, COL, chose to believe all of the statements that Mr. and his friends wrote against me and brought charges against me. COL told me that she did not have any proof that I did any of the things that were said about me but she wanted to court martial me anyway.  Also, I believe COL wanted to court martial me because I filed an IG complaint on USACHPPM-PAC Deputy Commander, LTC. I filed an IG complaint against LTC after he accused me of having an alcohol problem. LTC, acting USACHPPM-PAC Commander at the time, referred me to ASAP solely based on statements that Mr. and one of his friends wrote about me. I went to ASAP and was determined not to have any type of substance abuse problem. Once I completed the ASAP evaluation I referenced AR 600-85 to determine if my rights as a Soldier were violated. LTC did not follow any of the procedures outlined in the regulation. Per AR 600-85 I should have been involved in some type of alcohol related incident, such as a DUI or being drunk on duty, which would have warranted me being referred to ASAP. I have never had any type of alcohol or drug related incident. Therefore, I went to the IG about the situation. After conferring with JAG and several retired Officers and NCOs I decided not to have an Article 32 Investigation. Now I know I should have gone to trial because there was no real evidence against me and I feel I did not have adequate representation by a trial defense counselor. In Japan there are no defense lawyers. Therefore, Soldiers have to rely on defense services from Korea.  I never met the lawyer, CPT, who represented me. We communicated by phone and email only. Since there was not a trial, CPT did not get a chance to meet with Mr. or anyone else who would have testified for or against me.  Therefore, I believe CPT did not advise me appropriately by telling me not to go to trial and to resign my commission. I know that if I went to trial I would have been found innocent because I did not do anything illegal or wrong. Also, I have never received any type of negative performance evaluation that would support justification for the type of discharge I received. Furthermore, Mr. and I have been in contact with each other since I separated from the Army which shows that all of his allegations were repercussions of a disgruntled boyfriend. I was a Commissioned Officer in the United States Army.  I t is with pride that I diligently strived to carry myself in a professional manner both on and off duty.  I did not or will not do anything to cause any embarrassment to myself, my unit, the United States Army Medical Command, or the United States Army."

II.  Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed?	     
Tender Offer:   N/A

See Attachments:  Legal     Medical     Minority Opinion     Exhibits 

III.  Discharge Under Review
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: 	   Date: 070531
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 070720   Chapter: 3 - 13     AR: 600-8-24
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: DFS   Unit/Location: US Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine-Pacific, Camp Zama, Japan 

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:  26
Current ENL Date: OAD 040420    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	03 Yrs, 03Mos, 00Days ?????
Total Service:  		5 Yrs, 02Mos, 28Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 020116-040113/HD
Highest Grade: 03		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 72E/Medical Service Corps Officer   GT: 121   EDU: College Graduate   Overseas: Japan   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM, NDSM, ASR, AGCM, GWOTSM

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

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 9 May 2007, the applicant was charged with absent without authorization 070417-070420; three counts of disobeying the lawful orders of superior officers; commiting assault on a service member with an object likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm, a champagne bottle; unlawfully pushing a civilian employee; and on two occasions conducting herself in public in a disorderly manner to the disgrace of the armed forces. On 30 May 2007, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily tendered her resignation from the service under the requested, in writing, discharge under the provisions of Chapter 3, AR 600-8-24, for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by a general court-martial or a board of officers.   The applicant indicated that she understood that she could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veteran’s benefits.  The chain of command recommended approval of the resignation for the good of the service with issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The Ad Hoc Review Board recommended that the applicant’s resignation be accepted with issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 25 June 2007, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.       

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
Army regulation 600-8-24 prescribes the policies and procedures governing the transfer and discharge of Army officer personnel.  Chapter 3, Paragraph 3-13 outlines the rules for processing requests for resignation for the good of the service in lieu of trial by a general court-martial.
       

       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, and the evidence and issues she submitted, the analyst recommends that the applicant be granted partial relief and her  characterization of service be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions.  This recommendation was made after full consideration of her overall faithful and honorable service, particularly her prior enlisted service as well as her record of misconduct.  The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant’s characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable.  While the applicant's misconduct is not condoned, the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, mitigated the discrediting entries in her service record.  However, the analyst determined that the narrative reason for discharge was both proper and equitable.   
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 7 November 2008         Location: Washington, D.C.

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 period of service under review and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length and quality of her service and the circumstances surrounding her misconduct and as a result it is inequitable.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  The Board determined that the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it.  
        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 4    No change 1
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(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: No Change
Other: NA										
RE Code: 									 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080001203
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages