Applicant Name: ?????
Application Receipt Date: 2009/05/04 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA
I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change
Issues: See DD Form 293 and supporting 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: NIF
Discharge Received: Date: 090413 Chapter: 4-2b AR: 600-8-24
Reason: Unacceptable Conduct RE: SPD: JNC Unit/Location: 3rd Sqdn, 16th CAV, Ft Knox, KY
Time Lost: None
Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None
Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None
Counseling Records Available: Yes No
IV. Soldiers Overall Record
Age at current enlistment: 33
Current ENL Date: 071217 Current ENL Term: NIF Years ?????
Current ENL Service: 1 Yrs, 03Mos, 27Days ?????
Total Service: 1 Yrs, 03Mos, 27Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: 2LT Performance Ratings Available: Yes No
MOS: 19A Armor Officer GT: None EDU: College Grad Overseas: None Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR
V. Post-Discharge Activity
City, State: Reidsville, NC
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant was appointed a 2LT in the North Carolina ARNG effective 090414.
VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation
a. Facts and Circumstances:
The evidence of record shows that on 19 December 2008, the applicant was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, AR 600-8-24, by reason of misconduct, moral or professional dereliction.
The applicant was directed to show cause for retention in the Army after receiving a GOMOR on 080918 for misconduct which resulted in his removal from training in the Basic Officer Leader Course III and conduct unbecoming of an officer. 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 13 January 2009, the applicant submitted a memorandum for consideration to Show Cause for his retention on active duty.
On 2 March 2009, the separation authority recommended separation with an honorable discharge. The Ad Hoc Review Board recommended that the applicants elimination be accepted with issuance of an honorable discharge.
On 24 March 2009, 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 honorable.
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 applicants military records, and the issue he submitted, the analyst determined that the evidence was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of the discharge under review.
The applicants 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 or general, under honorable conditions discharge. The applicant provided no corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicants service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.
Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue and 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.
Therefore, the reason for discharge remain both proper and equitable.
VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing
Type of Hearing: Date: 22 March 2010 Location: Washington, DC
Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No
Counsel: None
Witnesses/Observers: None
Exhibits Submitted: Letters from two students, Discharge Orders from the Army National Guard dated 091026, Diploma from the Infantry Basic Officer Leader Course dated 090827, Service School Academic Evaluation Report dated 090821 and documents requesting a conditional release from the ARNG to Active Duty and a Report of Medical Examination dated 080506.
VIII. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony 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 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: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE
Case Number AR20090007634
______________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 3 pages
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060011688
Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 19 December 2000, the Commander, United States Army Infantry Center and Fort Benning, Fort Benning, GA, notified the applicant of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 600-8-24, by reason of misconduct, an act of personal misconduct (absent without leave from 28 August 2000 to 3 October 2000 and receiving a General Officer Article 15 for being absent without leave on 13 December 2000). The...
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080004710
Further the Ad Hoc Review Board reviewed the elimination action because of substandard performance of duty in accordance with AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2a(4) and forwarded the elimination action to the Department of the Army, Office of the Assistant Secretary Manpower and Reserve Affairs for approval. The evidence of record shows that the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards), reviewed the elimination action and determined that the applicant would be separated with an...
ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090007971
Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? On 30 June 2005, 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. Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: NA VIII.
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080011607
The Ad Hoc Review Board met again; and on 31 July 2006, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards), accepted the applicant's request for discharge, 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 record shows that the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Chapter 4,paragraphs 4-2b, 5, 8, and 9, by reason of misconduct, moral or...
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080004394
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. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | AR20110006066
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 and the issues 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 4-2b, AR 600-8-24, by reason...
ARMY | DRB | CY2012 | AR20120002774
On 20 November 2009, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards), based on the DA, Ad Hoc Review Board's review of the resignation in lieu of elimination tendered by the the applicant, accepted the applicant's resignation and directed that the applicants discharge with an Honorable characterization of service. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of the entire applicants military records, and the issues and documents he submitted, the analyst...
ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070017727
Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 6 August 2003, the applicant was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2 and 4-20 by reason of substandard performannce of duty, moral and professional dereliction, and misconduct. The Ad Hoc Review Board met, and on 19 December 2003, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board, and directed...
ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090010596
On 25 May 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 general, under honorable conditions. The applicant states that his chain of command or convening authority should have medical retired him or given him a medical discharge because he was pending a Medical Evaluation Board. Additionally, the analyst noted the applicant's issue...
ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090007321
On 13 August 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 record shows that the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Chapter 4,paragraph 2-33, AR 600-8-24, by reason of misconduct and derogatory information, with a...