IN THE CASE OF:  	
      
      BOARD DATE:  	27 September 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130002672
___________________________________________________________________________

Board Determination and Directed Action

After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge to be proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.



      
      
      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 and the reentry eligibility (RE) code changed which would allow him to reenter the military.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, his discharge is inequitable because it was based on opinion and not the facts.  He served 17 years in the military and those were the only two incidents he was involved in.  
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			6 February 2013
b. Discharge Received:			General, Under Honorable Conditions 
c. Date of Discharge:				18 September 2012				
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		Unacceptable Conduct, AR 600-8-24 									paragraph 4-2b, JNC, NA
e. Unit of assignment:				60th Ordnance Company, 68th Combat
Sustainment Support Battalion, 43rd Sustainment Brigade, Fort Carson, CO
f. Current Entry Date/Term:			12 May 2009, 6 years 		
g. Current Term Net Active Service:		3 year, 4 months, 7 days	
h. Total Service:				17 years, 6 months, 9 days
i. Time Lost:					None
j. Previous Discharges:			ARNG 950309-960715/NA
ADT    960716-971030/UNC
USAR 971031-980126/NA
RA      980127-090511/HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			CW2
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		890A0, Ammunition Technician
m. GT Score:					NA
n. Education:					HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:				Southwest Asia
p. Combat Service:				Iraq (091116-101106)
q. Decorations/Awards:			BSM (2), ARCOM (3), AAM (4),  AGCM (4)
NDSMw/BSS, GWOTEM, GWOTEM, ICM-2 NPDR, ASR, OSR (3)				
r. Administrative Separation Board: 		No  
s. Performance Ratings:			Yes
t. Counseling Statements:			No
u. Prior Board Review:				No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 March 1995.  After successfully attending Warrant Officer Candidate School, he was commissioned as a Warrant Officer/CW2, on 12 May 2009.  He was 31 years old at the time and a high school graduate.  He completed the ammunition technician course and the combat life savers course.  He was assigned to Fort Carson, CO, as an ammunition technician.  The applicant’s record shows he was a recipient of the Bronze Star Medal as listed in the paragraph above.  His Officer Record Brief (ORB) indicates he was on a 6-year tour.  

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The specific facts and circumstances leading to the applicant's discharge from the Army are not contained in the available records.  However, the applicant submitted a copy of his separation packet which shows on:

2.  15 March 2012, the applicant was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b(4), misconduct, moral or professional dereliction due to intentional omission or misstatement of fact in official statements or records for the purpose of misrepresentation substandard performance and misconduct.

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

      a. Demonstrated a pattern of spouse abuse, 
b. Made a false statement to the investigating officer by claiming he had not been
    arrested for domestic violence prior to 13 November 2011
      c. Arrested for driving under the influence and domestic violence on 
         2 March 2012. 

4.  Based on the above offenses, the Commanding General (CG), Headquarters, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, CO, indicated he was recommending the applicant’s discharge from the Army with a characterization of service of honorable.  However, if an honorable or general discharge is recommended, the case will be forwarded directly to Human Resources Command for submission to Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Board), without referral to a Board of Inquiry.  

5.  On 20 April 2012, the applicant submitted a rebuttal in reference to his initiation of elimination and to show cause for his retention. 

6.  On 29 April 2012, the applicant acknowledged receipt of a copy of his approved probationary officer elimination under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b.  

7.  On 10 May 2012, the Commanding General (CG), Headquarters, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, CO, reviewed the applicant’s rebuttal memorandum and recommended elimination with issuance of a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

8.  The battalion and brigade commanders recommended approval of the applicant’s elimination from the US Army with a general, under honorable conditions characterization of service.

9.  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.

10.  On 27 August 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.   

11.  On 28 August 2012, AHRC-OPL-R, issued a message citing the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) decision and that orders be published directing the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b, for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction of duty, with an separation program designator (SPD) code JNC, with a general, under honorable conditions characterization of service.  

12.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 18 September 2012, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions, under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b, for unacceptable conduct.

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

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Allegations and findings of domestic violence in the form of a complaint from Phoenix City, AL (7 April 2011), an investigation and arrest by the El Paso County, CO Sheriff's Department for menacing with a deadly weapon (felony) (13 November 2011), a military police report on the El Paso County menacing charge (15 November 2011), an AR 15-6 Report of Investigation dated 16 December 2011, into allegations of domestic violence and an inappropriate personal relationship with an enlisted member; and, a 120125 Investigative Report into domestic violence allegations by the El Paso County Office of the District Attorney.

2.  Being charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol on 02 MAR 12, resulting in a 25 March 2012, memorandum from the garrison commander, Fort Carson, CO, prohibiting the applicant from operating a motor vehicle on the installation as result of his being charged with DUI and, a 2 April 2012, request for hearing for reinstatement of driving privileges prepared by the applicant.

3.  The applicant's performance record as a warrant officer with Officer Evaluation Reports for the periods 120125-120918 (Unsatisfactory Performance/Do Not Promote, senior rater assessment of Do Not Promote/No Block Check), 110302-120126 (Relief for Case, Unsatisfactory Performance/Do Not Promote, senior rater assessment of Do Not Promote/Below Center of Mass), 100716-100715 (Change of Rater, Outstanding Performance/Must Promote, senior rater assessment of Best Qualified), 090512-100715 (Change of Rater, Outstanding Performance/Must Promote, senior rater assessed as Best Qualified), 090512-100715 (Change of Rater, Outstanding Performance/Must Promote, senior rater assessment as Best Qualified).  Academic Evaluation Report dated 090811 showing applicant achieved course standards.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293 with numerous attachments marked as exhibits, a self authored stated and an incomplete copy of his separation packet.  

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 his discharge is inequitable because it was based on opinion and not the facts.  He served 17 years in the military and, those were the only two incidents he was involved in.  The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered.  However, this 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 which was substantiated by the AR 15-6 Investigation.  

5.  The applicant further contends that he received a reentry eligibility (RE) code of "NA" instead of a number and this is an error that should be corrected with a number code.  According to AR 635-5, Separation Documents and AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes, only enlisted separations receive a reentry eligibility (RE) code number.  They do not authorize the use of reentry eligibility (RE) code numbers for officer separations.  

6.  If the applicant desires to reenter the military, he should contact the local recruiter to determine his eligibility to reenlist.  Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes.  If the applicant still believes there is an error or injustice in the discharge, he then may make application to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, utilizing a DD Form l49, which can be obtained at a local military installation or from veteran assistance offices.

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

8.  Therefore, the characterization of service and the reentry eligibility (RE) code being both proper and equitable, recommend Board to deny relief.



SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing: Personal Appearance  	Date:  27 September 2013  Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No 

Counsel:  None

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

Board Action Directed:
Issue a new DD Form 214:			No
Change Characterization to:		No Change
Change Reason to:				No Change
Change Authority for Separation:		No Change
Change RE Code to:			No Change
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)		AR20130002672

Page 2 of 7 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1