Applicant Name:   

Application Receipt Date: 2009/01/21	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: 001009
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 001205   Chapter: 4-2b and Chapter 4-24a(1)     AR: 600-8-24
Reason: Unacceptable Conduct	   RE:     SPD: BNC   Unit/Location: SBCCOM, Natick Lab, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 

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:  31
Current ENL Date: 940927    Current ENL Term: NA Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	06 Yrs, 02Mos, 28Days ?????
Total Service:  		17 Yrs, 10Mos, 03Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 881130-920420/HD
                                       RA 920421-931202/HD
                                       RA 931203-940926/HD
Highest Grade: O-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: Quartermaster Corps   GT: NA   EDU: MA, Business Admin   Overseas: Germany   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: MSM, AAM, AFAM, AGCM, NDSM, ASR, OSR, NCOPDR

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 October 2000, the applicant was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2(b), AR 600-8-24, by reason of misconduct, moral or professional dereliction.  The applicant was directed to show cause for his retention in the Army after his involvement in several incidents of misconduct including using a government computer to access and download sexually explicit and pornographic internet sites; conduct unbecoming an officer by engaging in inappropriate conduct with two female enlisted Soldiers under his command during an HHD training exercise; intentional misstatement of fact by providing a false official statement to a superior commissioned officer concerning misuse of an IMPAC card for a command function; conduct unbecoming an officer by participating in a "practical joke" perpetrated at the expense of a subordinate Soldier; conduct unbecoming an officer by committing sexual harrassment against an 18 year old intern by repeatedly approaching her and asking her for her phone number, the location of her office, and for lunch dates.  He was advised that he could submit a voluntary resignation in lieu of elimination or submit a rebuttal and request an appearance before a Board of Inquiry.  On 16 October 2000, after counsulting with legal counsel, the applicant submitted a request to resign in lieu of elimination proceedings.  A  Department of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board recommended that the applicant’s elimination be accepted with issuance of a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  On 21 November 2000, 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 general, under honorable conditions. 
       
       The record contains a GOMOR dated 5 April 2000. 

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       Army Regulation 600-8-24 sets forth the basic authority for officer transfers and discharges.  Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for eliminating an officer from the Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interest of national security.  AR 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 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.

       c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:  
       After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records, the issues, and the supporting documents evidence he submitted, the analyst determined that the evidence was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of the discharge under review.  The applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by Army Officers.  By his misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant provided no 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 that even though the applicant's contention that this was a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  The applicable Army regulation states that there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization.  The analyst having examined all the circumstances determined that the applicant committed several incidents of misconduct which did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service remains both proper and equitable.   
       
       
       
       
       
       
       

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 13 July 2009         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 enlistment under review and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.  
        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 0    No change 5
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: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090002381
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 2 of 3 pages