IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	29 July 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130001367
___________________________________________________________________________

Board Determination and Directed Action

1.  After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony, and notwithstanding the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the recommendations of the applicant’s chain of command and the credibility of his testimony and as a result it is inequitable.  

2.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it.  



      
      
      Presiding Officer
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Department of the Army Discharge Review Board in this case.

THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND STATEMENT:

1.  The applicant requests that his general, under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he served with distinction in Afghanistan and received several decorations.  He had numerous favorable performance ratings before he resigned.  He believes his service merits an honorable discharge although some of his superiors believed his performance needed improvement.  
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			18 January 2013
b. Discharge Received:			General, Under Honorable Conditions 
c. Date of Discharge:				12 April 2012				
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		Unacceptable Conduct, AR 600-8-24 									paragraph 4-2b, 4-24a(1), BNC, NA
e. Unit of assignment:				HHC, Brigade Troops Battalion, 									FOB Masum Ghar, Afghanistan	
f. Current Entry Date/Term:			10 June 2010, 3 years 		
g. Current Term Net Active Service:		1 year, 10 months, 3 days	
h. Total Service:				2 years, 6 months, 12 days
i. Time Lost:					None
j. Previous Discharges:			RA (091001-100609), HD	
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			O-1
l. Branch:					Engineer
m. GT Score:					NA
n. Education:					College Graduate
o. Overseas Service:				SWA, Alaska
p. Combat Service:				Afghanistan (110428-120309)
q. Decorations/Awards:			NDSM, ACM-2, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR									NATO MDL
r. Administrative Separation Board: 		No  
s. Performance Ratings:			Yes
t. Counseling Statements:			Yes
u. Prior Board Review:				No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 October 2009.  After successfully attending Officer Candidate School, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant on 10 June 2010.  He was 24 years old at the time and a college graduate.  The applicant’s record shows no acts of valor or meritorious achievements other than the awards listed in the paragraph above.  His Officer Record Brief (ORB) indicates he was on a 3-year tour.  

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence of record shows that on 8 October 2011, the applicant was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2a(1),(2),(3),(4),b(8), and c(4), due to substandard performance and misconduct.

2.  The applicant was directed to show cause for retention in the Army based on the following offenses:

      a. Repeatedly leaving his place of duty 
      b. Disobeying orders from superior commissioned officers
      c. Leaving classified documents unsecured in his room and in the dining facility
      d. Failing to perform his duties as a leader
      e. Failing to prepare his platoon and himself for combat missions
      f.  Fraternizing socially with Soldiers in his platoon
      g. Being inebriated in front of his Soldiers
      h. Receiving a relief for cause OER 

3.  Based on the above offenses, the Commanding General (CG), 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC, indicated he was recommending the applicant’s discharge from the Army with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

4.  On 3 November 2011, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily tendered his resignation from the Army in writing, under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 600-8-24, in lieu of further elimination proceedings.  The applicant indicated he understood he could receive an HD or a GD as determined by HQDA.  He elected to waive his right to submit any matters in explanation, rebuttal, or defense concerning the allegations in his case.  However, his counsel provided a statement on the applicant’s behalf concerning the characterization of his discharge.

5.  The company, battalion, and brigade commanders recommended approval of the applicant’s elimination from the US Army with an honorable characterization of service.

6.  On 12 November 2011, the CG, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC, considered the applicant’s additional matters and recommended separation from the US Army, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

7.  The Department of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board reviewed the resignation in lieu of elimination tendered by the applicant based on misconduct and moral or professional dereliction.

8.  On 29 February 2012, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.   

9.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 12 April 2012, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions, under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b, 4-24a(1), for unacceptable conduct.

10.  The applicant’s service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Eleven negative counseling statements dated between 15 May 2011 and 28 September 2011, for issues related to unsatisfactory performance, leaving his place of duty without proper authorization, violating standard operating procedures, disobeying a direct order, failure to bring the proper equipment, leaving secret documents unattended, fraternization, failing to obey orders, failing to properly lead his Soldiers, failure to conduct physical training, and relief for cause.

2.  Relief for Cause OER (100610-110529), the rater assessed him as Unsatisfactory Performance/Do Not Promote and the senior rater as Do Not Promote/no block check.

3.  Change of Rater OER (110529-120131), the rater assessed him as Unsatisfactory Performance/Do not Promote and the senior rater as Do Not Promote/Below Center of Mass.

4.  Academic Evaluation Report (101123), Engineer Basic Course, applicant achieved course standards.  

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a copy of an Academic Evaluation Report and a letter of recommendation for retention.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None provided with the application. 

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

1. Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers.  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.

2.  AR 600-8-24, paragraph 1-22a, provides that an officer will normally receive an honorable characterization of service when the quality of the officer’s service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty.  An honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.

3.  A general under honorable conditions characterization of service will normally be issued to an officer when the officer’s military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A separation under honorable conditions will normally be appropriate when an officer submits an unqualified resignation or a request for relief from active duty under circumstances involving misconduct which renders the officer unsuitable for further service, unless an under other than honorable conditions separation is appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered.  However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, the documents and the issue submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  

2.  The record confirms 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.  It brought discredit on the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  By his repeated incidents of unacceptable conduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge.  

3.  The applicant provided no corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the unacceptable conduct or poor duty performance.  Further, the applicant’s record contains no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  It appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

4.  The applicant contends that he served with distinction in Afghanistan and received several decorations and had numerous favorable performance ratings before he resigned.  He believes his service merits an honorable discharge although some of his superiors believed his performance needed improvement.  However, the applicant’s service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge as shown by the repeated incidents of unacceptable behavior as reflected on the numerous counseling statements contained in his service record.  

5.  The applicant contends he received numerous favorable performance ratings; however, there are 2 OERs in his record and both indicate unsatisfactory performance.

6.  The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 

7.  Therefore, the reason for discharge and characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief.

SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing:  Personal Appearance     Date: 29 July 2013	 Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes 

Counsel:  Yes

Witnesses/Observers: None 

DOCUMENTS/TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE:

1.  The applicant submitted the following additional documents:

	a.  Letter of Recommendation

In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional documents and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing.

Board Vote:
Character Change:  5	No Change:  0
Reason Change:	0	No Change:  5
(Board member names available upon request)

Board Action Directed:
Issue a new DD Form 214:			Yes
Change Characterization to:		Honorable
Change Reason to:				No Change
Change Authority for Separation:		No Change
Change RE Code to:			NA
Grade Restoration to:			NA
Other:						NA








Legend:
AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record	FG - Field Grade	IADT – Initial Active Duty Training	 	RE - Reentry
AWOL - Absent Without Leave	GD - General Discharge	NA - Not applicable	SCM- Summary Court Martial
BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge	HS - High School	NIF - Not in File	SPCM - Special Court Martial
CG - Company Grade Article 15	HD - Honorable Discharge	OAD - Ordered to Active Duty	UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge  
CID - Criminal investigation Department	MP – Military Police	OMPF - Official Military Personnel File	UOTH - Under Other Than                           			               Honorable Conditions
ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont)		AR20130001367

Page 2 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1