Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/06/02	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: 050920
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 051025   Chapter: 4      AR: 600-8-24
Reason: Unacceptable Conduct	   RE:     SPD: BNC   Unit/Location: HHC,1-212th Aviation Regiment, Fort Rucker, AL 

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:  22
Current ENL Date: 940614/OAD    Current ENL Term: NIF Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	11 Yrs, 04Mos, 12Days ?????
Total Service:  		11 Yrs, 11Mos, 02Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA-931124-940613/NA
Highest Grade: O-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 15A A4 Aviation, General/Comptroller   GT: NA   EDU: MS (Engrg Technology)   Overseas: Bosnia   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: MSM, ARCOM-3, AAM-5, ARCAM, NDSM-2, AFSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR, NATO MDL

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

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation
       
       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 2 September 2004, the applicant was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraphs 4-2b(5) and (8), 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 committing misconduct.  He was advised that he could submit a resignation in lieu of elimination, submit a rebuttal or declination statement, and request  appearance before a Board of Inquiry.  
       
       
       On 20 September 2004, the applicant voluntarily tendered his  resignation under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 600-8-24, in lieu of further elimination proceedings and waived his right to appear before a board of officers contingent upon receiving a general, under honorable conditions or honorable discharge. 
       
       On 4 October 2004, the Commander, U.S. Army Aviation Center and Fort Rucker, Fort Rucker, AL, recommended approval of the applicant's request for resignation in lieu of elimination under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 600-8-24, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 
       
       On 6 December 2004, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) did not accept the applicant's conditional resignation.
       
       On 25 March 2005, the Board of Inquiry (BOI) found that the applicant committed acts of personal misconduct and conducted himself in a demeanor that was unbecoming of an officer.  The Board recommended separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       On 17 August 2005, the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Staff Judge Advocate's legal review requested a hearing by a new BOI with one Reserve Component Officer in accordance with paragraph 4-16d, AR 600-8-24.
       
       On 24 August 2005, again the applicant voluntarily tendered his resignation under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 600-8-24, in lieu of further elimination proceedings.  
       
       On 20 September 2005, the Commander, U.S. Army Aviation Center and Fort Rucker, Fort Rucker, AL, recommended approval of the applicant's request for resignation in lieu of elimination under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 600-8-24, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  Further, the command was initiating a new BOI to comply with regulatory requirements and the new Board's findings and recommendations could not be less favorable that the previous board unless additional allegations were considered. 
       
       On 7 October 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.  
       
       The applicant's record contains a Military Police Desk Blotter and a Military Police Report dated 12 June 2004.
       
       The applicant's record contains a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) dated 29 July 2004, for assault and conduct unbecoming of an officer and gentleman.
       
       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 in 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 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 of unacceptable conduct, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  
       
       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.  Further, by his misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  
       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 paragraphs 4-2b(5) and (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 "BNC."  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.  
       
       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. 
       
             The applicant's issue in regards to expunging the General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) from his offical records does not fall within the purview of this Board.  On 25 October 2005, the applicant applied to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for relief in this matter and his request was denied.  However, if the applicant feels an injustice stills exists he may reapply to the ABCMR only if new and relevant information is submitted, utilizing DD Form 149 regarding this matter.  An application for that Board can be obtained on line or from the Veterans Administration.  
       
       If the applicant desires to rejoin the military, he should contact the local recruiter to determine his eligibility.  Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time.
       
       Therefore, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service, to include 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: 2 April 2010         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: Mr. Kenneth J. David
                PO Box 5882
                Tallahassee, FL

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 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: None
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090010112
______________________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 4 pages