Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/07/16	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 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: 080307
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 080608   Chapter: 4-2(a), (b)    AR: 600-8-24
Reason: Unaccceptable Conduct	   RE:     SPD: JNC   Unit/Location: HHT, 1st Air CAV Bde, Fort Hood, TX 

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:  29
Current ENL Date: 050606/OAD    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	03 Yrs, 00Mos, 03Days ?????
Total Service:  		12 Yrs, 04Mos, 08Days block 12d on the applicant's DD Form 214, total prior inactive service is incorrect, should read 03 Yrs, 04 Mos, 05 Days.
Previous Discharges: 	RA-960418-990417/HD
                                       USARCG-990418-000426/NA
                                       RA-000427-030426/HD
                                       USARCG-030427-030713/NA
                                       USAR-(ROTC Cadet)-030714-050605/HD
Highest Grade: 0-2		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 35D All Source Intel   GT: NA   EDU: BS (Criminal Justice)   Overseas: Germany, Bosnia (Prior Service)/Southwest Asia   Combat: Iraq (061021-071216)
Decorations/Awards: AGCM, NDSM, ICMS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR-2, NM 

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

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       Evidence of record shows that on 9 January 2008, the applicant was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraphs 4-2 (a), (b), AR 600-8-24, by reason of unacceptable conduct.  The applicant was directed to show cause for her retention on active duty for acts of personal misconduct and substandard performance of duty, the applicant engaged in conduct unbecoming of an officer by her well documented pattern of insubordination and contempt of superior officers; and her defective attitude manifested itself throughout her tenure as a commissioned officer; including precommissioning training and Military Intelligence Offficer Basic Course.  She was advised that she could submit a voluntary resignation in lieu of further elimination, request discharge in lieu of elimination, or submit a written rebuttal.  On 8 February 2008, 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 7 March 2008, the Commander, 1st CAV Division, Fort Hood, TX, recommended that the applicant be eliminated from the service under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 600-8-24, with issuance of a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  The Ad Hoc Review Board met; and on 6 May 2008, 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 general, under honorable conditions.
       
       The evidence of records mentions that the applicant received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand; however, it does not list a date and could possibly be from a prior period of service.

       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 during the term of service  under review, the issues and documents she submitted with the application, the analyst determined that the evidence was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of the discharge under review. The evidence of record shows that the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2 (a), (b), AR 600-8-24, by reason of unacceptable conduct, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  The applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of her service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by Army Officers.  The analyst concluded that by her misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  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, 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 and the characterization of service 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: 24 April 2009         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 characterization of service is too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable.  The Board determined that the overall length and quality of the applicant’s service, to include her combat service, mitigated the discrediting entries in her service record.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable.  However, the Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 
        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 3    No change 2
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 AR20080011242
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages