Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/02/27	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 149 and attached documents submitted by the applicant.

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: 060803
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 060922   Chapter: 4-2b    AR: 600-8-24
Reason: Unacceptable Conduct	   RE:     SPD: JNC   Unit/Location: A Co, 369th AG Bn, Fort Jackson, SC 

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:  27
Current ENL Date: 020213    Current ENL Term: Indef Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	04 Yrs, 07Mos, 10Days Item 12c on the applicant's DD Form 214, net active service this period is incorrect, should read 04 Yrs, 07 Mos, 10 Days
Total Service:  		10 Yrs, 07Mos, 25Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	USAR-940216-940328/NA
                                       ADT-940329-940715/UNC
                                       USAR-940716-000301/NA
                                       USAR Cadet-000302-011213/NA
                                       USAR-011214-020212/HD
                                         (Concurrent Service)
Highest Grade: 0-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 44A Finance   GT: NA   EDU: MBA Business Admin   Overseas: Korea   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM, NDSM-2, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR

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

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       Evidence of record shows that on 27 June 2006, the applicant was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2b(4) and 4-2b (8) by reason of unacceptable conduct.  The applicant was directed to show cause for her retention on active duty for intentional omission or mistatement of fact, the applicant made a false official statement to a CPT (060118), and signed an official memorandum which was false (060424); and professional dereliction, disrespectful towards a CPT (050712), disobeyed a lawful command from a CPT x 2 (050712) and (050801), and without authority, absent from her place of duty (050712-050713).  She was advised that she could submit a voluntary resignation in lieu of further elimination, request discharge in lieu of elimination, apply for retirement if otherwise eligible, submit a written rebuttal or a declination statement.  On 20 July 2006, the applicant elected to submit a memorandum of rebuttal in lieu of resignation from the Army under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 600-8-24.  The applicant was a probationary officer and therefore not entitled to a Board of Inquiry.  On 3 August 2006, the Commander, United States Army Soldier Support Institute, Fort Jackson, SC, recommended that the applicant be eliminated from the service under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 600-8-24, with issuance of a fully honorable discharge.  The Ad Hoc Review Board met, and on 22 August 2006, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board, and directed that the applicant be separated from the U.S. Army with a characterization of service of fully honorable.

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       Army Regulation 600-8-24 sets the basic authority for Officer Transfers and Discharges.  Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination 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 a careful review of all the applicant's military records for the term of service under review, the issues and documents that she submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit a change to the applicant's narrative reason for discharge.  The evidence of record shows that the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2(b) and 4-2b (8), by reason of unacceptable conduct, with a characterization of service of fully 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 or poor duty performance.  Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue, however, the narrative reason for separation is governed by specific directives.  The applicant was discharged under the provisions of paragraph  4-2b(4) and 4-2b (8) AR 600-8-24.  The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Unacceptable Conduct" and the separation code is "JNC."  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 and 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.  Additionally, the issue regarding the applicant's procedural rights, 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 narrative reason for discharge and the separation (SPD) code were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief.
       

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 10 December 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, the information submitted with the application, and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the information provided by the intermediate commander was not new misconduct, but was merely his comments on the evidence the applicant had submitted and therefore does not constitute improper Ex Parte information.  In view of the foregoing, the Board determined that the narrative reason for discharge and the separation (SPD) code were both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.
  
        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 0    No change 0
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)
								         EDGAR J. YANGER			 
								         Colonel, U.S. Army
X.  Board Action Directed					         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: None
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080004394
______________________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 3 pages