IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	12 August 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130002709
___________________________________________________________________________

Board Determination and Directed Action

1.  After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period under review and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge was improper.  The amendment to the applicant’s DD 214 and subsequent discharge Order from the US Army Reserve (USAR) with a GD was improper.  The applicant was a USAR officer on active duty when his unit initiated elimination proceedings against him under AR 600-8-24, which applies to officers serving on active duty.  On 29 December 2011, The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) approved the elimination action under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4, due to misconduct, moral and professional dereliction.  

2.  However, the Board noted that the Army had released the applicant from active duty on     16 November 2011 and issued him a DD Form 214 with an honorable discharge.  Once he was released from active duty, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Army Review Boards) lost jurisdiction on the case.  Thus, the attempt to change the applicant’s DD Form 214 to show a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions was improper because it was based on a decision in which the separation authority no longer had jurisdiction.  Likewise, the effort to characterize the applicant’s separation from the USAR with a general, under honorable conditions discharge was void of any facts, and the characterization of service appears to have been based on the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army’s decision and not based upon a separation from the USAR under the provisions of AR 135-175.  

3.  In view of the foregoing, the Board determined the discharge was improper and directed the applicant’s DD Form 214 be reissued with the following changes:

    	a.  Change block 24, characterization of service to honorable
     	b.  Change block 25, separation authority to AR 600-8-24, paragraph 2-7
     	c.  Change block 26, separation code to MBK
d.  Change block 28, narrative reason for separation to completion of required active      service.



4.  The Board also directs the ARBA Promulgation Team, Arlington, VA to issue a new discharge order which reflects the following directed change:

	(X)  Change the characterization of the discharge to Honorable.


      
      
      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 his general, under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he requests an upgrade of the discharge he received because the decision was inequitable and was made with incomplete information.  He believed he had appropriately completed out processing to leave theater and he had the blessing of his commander.  He desires to continue to serve his country in the Armed Forces. 

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			7 February 2013
b. Discharge Received:			General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				16 December 2011/the applicant was released 							from active duty on this date/REFRAD
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		Unacceptable Conduct, AR 600-8-24 								paragraph 4-2b, 4-24a(1), JNC, NA
e. Unit of assignment:				B Co, Task Force ODIN, 77th Theater Aviation 							Brigade, COB Adder, Iraq, APO AE
f. Current Entry Date/Term:			17 January 2011/OAD for 400 days
g. Current Term Net Active Service:		11 months, 0 days
h. Total Service:				11 years, 5 months, 4 days
i. Time Lost:					None
j. Previous Discharges:			RA (000713-050624)/HD										RA (050625-070625)/HD										USARCG (070626-071114)/NA/block 12e on 							the applicant’s DD Form 214 total prior inactive 						service, is incorrect and should read 								1 year, 9 months, 1 day										USAR (071115-081028)/NA									ADT (081029-100818)/HD										USAR-(100819-110116)/NA
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			O-3
l. Branch:					15A Aviation, General
m. GT Score:					NA
n. Education:					College Graduate
o. Overseas Service:				Hawaii/Southwest Asia
p. Combat Service:				Iraq x 2 (110219-110721), (110811-111111)
     q.	Decorations/Awards:			JSCM-3, ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM, ICM-W/CS, 								GWOTEM, GWOTSM, AFRM-W/”M” DEV, 								NPDR, ASR, OSR, CAB, JMUA
     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 13 July 2000, for 6 years.  He was 20 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 98C3L YS, Signal Intelligence Analyst.  He reenlisted on           26 June 2005, for 2 years.  He separated from the Army on 25 June 2007, with an honorable discharge.  After applying for appointment as a commissioned officer in the Army Reserve, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant on 1 October 2007.  He was 25 years old at the time and a college graduate.  His record also shows he served two combat tours, achieved the rank of CPT/O-3, and earned several awards including a JSCM-3, ARCOM and CAB.

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 Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b(5), AR 600-8-24, by reason of acts of misconduct, moral or professional dereliction.

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

     a.  failing to go to his appointed place of duty between (110719-110722)

     b.  willfully disobeying lawful orders from MAJ B, his company commander, to return to Iraq

     c.  willfully disobeying a lawful order from LTC T, his battalion commander, not to leave theater without an amendment to his orders

     d.  conducting himself in a manner unbecoming an officer an gentleman by misrepresenting his status as a lawfully redeploying service member to affect his early redeployment and mobilization

3.  He was advised that he could submit a sworn or unsworn statement, his request for resignation in lieu of elimination, request for discharge in lieu of elimination, apply for retirement in lieu of elimination, or submit a written rebuttal.

4.  On 24 October 2011, the applicant submitted a rebuttal statement under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 600-8-24, in lieu of further elimination proceedings.  The applicant was a probationary officer and therefore not entitled to appear before a board of officers (Board of Inquiry).  

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



6.  On 29 October 2011, the Commander, Headquarters, 25th Infantry Division and United States Division-Center, Camp Liberty, Iraq, recommended approval of the applicant's elimination from the Service under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, AR 600-8-24, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 

7.  On 29 December 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 a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.   

8.  The applicant was released from the Army on 16 December 2011, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions, under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, AR 600-8-24, for unacceptable conduct.

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

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  A punitive General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 22 October 2011 for his conduct between 19 July 2011 and 11 August 2011.  During this time, he attempted to secure his release from theater despite his battalion commander’s directive to stay in theater until his orders were amended.  He left his place of duty, took his conditional release from the Army Reserve, and manifested himself on a flight back to the United States, where he began his redeployment and reintegration efforts.  Furthermore, after being ordered to stay with his escorts and immediately return to theater, he flew home to Wisconsin without authority.

2.  He received three negative counseling statements dated 8 May 2011, 8 August 2011 and    14 August 2011, for his decision to separate from the Army Reserve Troop Program Unit (TPU), the command expected him of return to theater and his unauthorized departure from Iraq.

3.  REFRAD OER (110117-110724), the rater assessed him as Outstanding Performance/no block checked for promotion/a comment was annotated promote to major below the zone and the senior rater was not qualified to rate.  Of note, it appears this evaluation was incomplete.

4.  An Article 15, dated 19 October 2011 for without authority, failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (110719-110722); disobeyed a lawful command from his superior commissioned officer x 2 MAJ B (110722) and LTC T (110719); and wrongfully and dishonorably misrepresenting to various military and civilian personnel in support of Operation New Dawn, that he was a lawfully redeploying service member, was authorized to demobilize from active duty and had satisfied his service obligation between (110719-110811); the punishment consisted of forfeiture of $2,808 pay x 2 months (suspended) and a written reprimand, (GO).

5.  An AR 15-6 Investigation, dated 5 August 2011, with addendums dated 13 August,           18 August and 20 August 2011, regarding his unauthorized departure from theater, other acts of misconduct and his demobilization at Fort Hood.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293; three copies of college transcripts; Memorandum for Record, Retain CPT L; three Character Statements; two Officer Evaluation Reports (OER), five NCO Evaluation Reports (NCOER); a Self-Authored Statement; Memoranda for Record, No Weapon and Rest and Recuperation; Discharge Orders, D-03-204970; and a DD Form 214.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant stated in his application since his discharge, he has supervised disabled food service personnel in a Naval dining facility and translated Chinese documents for the government.  Also, he completed work on his master’s degree in Intelligence Management while maintain a 4.0 grade point average (GPA). 

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 and a change to the narrative reason for separation was carefully considered.  After examining the applicant’s record of service, the documents and the issue submitted with the application, the discharge is improper.

2.  The amendment to the officer's DD 214 and subsequent discharge orders from the U. S. Army Reserve (USAR) with a GD is improper.  The officer was USAR on AD when his unit initiated elimination proceedings against him under AR 600-8-24, which applies to officers serving on AD.  The DASA approved his elimination under AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4 for misconduct on 29 December 2011.  However, the Army had released him from active duty on 16 November 2011 and issued a DD 214 with an HD.  Once he was released from active duty, the DASA (Army Review Board) lost jurisdiction on the case.  Thus, the attempt to change his DD 214 to show a general, under honorable conditions discharge for misconduct was improper because it was based on the DASA’s decision. Likewise, the effort to characterize his separation from the USAR with a general, under honorable conditions discharge was void, as the characterization appears to have been based on the DASA’s decision and not based upon a separation from the USAR under provisions of AR 135-175.  In view of the foregoing, the discharge is improper.

3.  The records show proper discharge and separation authority procedures were not followed in this case.  

4.  Therefore, the discharge being improper, recommend the Board grant full relief in the following manner on the applicant’s archive DD Form 214:

     a.  Change block 24, characterization of service to honorable
     b.  Change block 25, separation authority to AR 600-8-24, paragraph 2-7
     c.  Change block 26, separation code to MBK
     d.  Change block 28, narrative reason for separation completion of required active service

5.  The Board also directs the ARBA Promulgation Team, Arlington, VA to issue a new discharge order to the applicant which reflects the following directed change:

       (X)  Change characterization of service to fully honorable.

SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing:  Records Review      Date:  12 August 2013   Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify:  No 

Counsel:  Yes [ Redacted ]

Witnesses/Observers:  NA

Board Vote:
Character Change:  4	No Change:  1
Reason Change:  	4	No Change:  1
(Board member names available upon request)


Board Action Directed:
Issue a new DD Form 214:  	Yes
Change Characterization to:  	Honorable	
Change Reason to:  		Completion of Required Active Service with the 							corresponding separation (SPD) code of MBK
Change Authority for Separation:  AR 600-8-24, paragraph 2-7
Change RE Code to:  		NA
Grade Restoration to:  		NA
Other:  TO:  ARBA Promulgation Team, Arlington, VA                                    12 August 2013

     The Army Discharge Review Board, established under the provisions of Section 30, Public Law 346, 78th Congress, 22 June 1944 and codified as Title 10, United States Code, Section1553, in the case of the applicant named in Part 1 directs the ARBA Promulgation Team, Arlington, VA issue a new discharge order to the applicant which reflects the following directed change:

       (X)  Change characterization of service to fully Honorable.





















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	UOTHC - Under Other Than                           			               Honorable Conditions


ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont)		AR20130002709



Page 8 of 8 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1