Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2012/03/23	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he requests a change to his narrative reason for separation and the separation code.  He contends that during the performance of his duties he developed severe medical symptoms that were exacerbated due to a hostile environment.  He states that he was not given specific duty for long periods of time despite his request for formal assignments.  

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: 	NA   Date: NA
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 110319   Chapter: 4-2a      AR: 600-8-24
Reason: Substandard Performance	   RE:     SPD: JHK   Unit/Location: C Co, Troop Command, Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Germany  

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:  46
Current ENL Date: 090104    Current ENL Term: INDEF Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 02 Mos, 16 Days ?????
Total Service:  		02 Yrs, 02 Mos, 16 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: O-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 67B/Laboratory Sciences Officer   GT: NA   EDU: PHD   Overseas: Germany   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR

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 3 May 2010, the applicant was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraphs 4-2a(1), 4-2a(2), 4-2a(3), 4-2a(4), 4-2a(6), 4-2a(8), 4-2b(5) and 4-2b(8), AR 600-8-24, for acts of substandard performance of duty; a downward trend in overall performance resulting in an unacceptable record of efficiency or a consistent record of mediocre service, failure to keep pace or to progress with contemporaries as demonstrated by a low record of efficiency when compared with other officers of the same grade and competitive category, failure to exercise the necessary leadership or command expected of a captain in the United States Army, failure to absorb technical proficiency required for his grade and competitive category, for a defective attitude and a lack of interpersonal skills, for being a disruptive presence in the laboratory, disrespectful to leadership, no eagerness to learn, failed to treat subordinates with the proper dignity and respect, failed to conform to the prescribed standards of dress, personal appearance, and military deportment expected of a Soldier in the United States Army, for acts of personal and professional misconduct; violated Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) standards, viewed medical records of others without obtaining the persons consent and without having a need to know, violated the commander’s sexual harassment policy by sending harassing emails to another officer, repeatedly attempted to contact a female officer after clearly being told that she was not interested in him, conduct unbecoming an officer.  He was advised that he could submit a voluntary resignation in lieu of elimination or submit a rebuttal.  
       
       The Ad Hoc Review Board found that the applicant committed acts of misconduct and moral or profesional dereliction and substandard performance of duty and recommended the applicant’s elimination be accepted with the issuance of an honorable discharge.  
       
       On 16 February 2011, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board and directed the applicant’s discharge with an honorable characterization of service.
       
       The records contains a AR 15-6 Investigation Report dated 25 November 2009. 

       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 no deviation is authorized.

       c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:  
       After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records during the period of enlistment under review and the issue he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit a change to the narrative reason for discharge on the applicant's DD Form 214. 
       
       The applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2a, AR 600-8-24, in effect at the time.  The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Substandard Performance," and the separation code is "JHK."  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.  There was no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation.  
       
       
       
       
       The applicant contends he is entitled to a change in narrative reason because of mitigating circumstances which contributed to his discharge.  Specifically, he claims that during the performance of his duties he developed severe medical symptoms that were exacerbated due to a hostile environment and he was not given specific duty for long periods of time despite his requests resulted in his discharge.  While the applicant may believe this was the underlying cause of his discharge, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief through his command or medical resources available to all Soldiers.  Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his actions.  Furthermore, there is no evidence of record and the applicant has submitted no probative medical evidence that he had a medical problem which rendered him disqualified for further military service and that he was not able to perform his duties, with either medical limitation or medication.
       
       In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined the narrative reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief. 

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 5 September 2012         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 149 dated, 22 March 2012, ADHOC board case files, report of medical assessment dated, 15 March 2011, VA report of illiness dated, 20 April 2011, DD Form 214, AR 15-6 investigation report dated 25 November 2009, and 33 exhibits with attachments in support of his request.

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 reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.
        
IX.  Board Decision						
Board Vote:
Character - Change 0    No change 0
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)


















X.  Board Action Directed
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to: 
Change Reason to: No Change
Other: NA
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA


XI.  Certification Signature
Approval Authority:




ARCHIE L. DAVIS III
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board




BONITA E. TROTMAN
Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army
Secretary Recorder

























Legend:
AWOL    	Absent Without Leave		GCM   General Court Martial	NA   Not applicable			SCM	Summary Court Martial
BCD   	Bad Conduct Discharge	GD      General Discharge	NIF   Not in the file			SPCM	Special Court Martial
CG 	Company Grade Article 15	HD      Honorable Discharge	OAD   Ordered to Active Duty		UNC	Uncharacterized Discharge  
DD 	Dishonorable Discharge	HS       High School Graduate	OMPF   Official Military Personnel File	UOTH  	Under Other Than Honorable 
FG	Field Grade Article 15		IADT   Initial Active Duty Training	RE     Reentry Code				Conditions 
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20120006070
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 4 pages