IN THE CASE OF:  	Ms. 

      BOARD DATE:  	25 October 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130004196
___________________________________________________________________________

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 was both 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 to have the narrative reason (Substandard Performance) removed from her DD Form 214.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that in Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, it states "Substandard Performance."  This is because AR 600-8-24, para 4-2(a)(16) (Reasons For Elimination), (Substandard Performance of Duty), states "Failure to establish and adequate Family Care Plan in accordance with AR 600-20, paragraph 5-5.  She served fourteen years of active duty, which twelve of those years the Army could have sent her any where they wanted to.  Her unit forced her out because she could not deploy while her husband was deployed with a Tier 2 unit (Special Forces).  We could not provide a valid Family Care Plan for their 6 month old baby and 15-year old son.  Her parents passed away in 2006, and her husband's mother was their dependent for two years and is an insulin dependent diabetic who has trouble hearing and seeing.  She could not care for an infant.  There was no one else in their family they could trust.  She respects there are certain requirements Soldiers must meet in order to serve and she had no issue getting out of the Army.  However, she feels like she continues to be punished with this “Substandard Performance” statement on her DD Form 214.  She has been searching for over 2 years for a GS position and it seems no one will hire her.  She doesn’t understand why officers are punished for getting out to care for their children.  

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			28 February 2013
b. Discharge Received:			Honorable  
c. Date of Discharge:				25 February  2011				
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		Substandard Performance, AR 600-8-24 							paragraph 4-2a, JHK, NA
e. Unit of assignment:				HHC, 43rd Sustainment Brigade (Rear) 								(Provisional), 4th Infantry Division 								(Mechanized), Fort Carson, CO	
f. Current Entry Date/Term:			15 March 2001, INDEF 		
g. Current Term Net Active Service:		9 year, 11 months, 11 days	
h. Total Service:				17 years, 3 months, 2 days
i. Time Lost:					None
j. Previous Discharges:			USAR (931123-950618), NA									RA (950619-010314), NA
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			O-4
l. Branch:					90A, Logistics
m. GT Score:					NA
n. Education:					College Graduate
o. Overseas Service:				Germany
p. Combat Service:				None
q. Decorations/Awards:			MSM, ARCOM-2, AAM, NDSM-2, GWOTSM, 							HSM, ASR, OSR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 		No  
s. Performance Ratings:			Yes
t. Counseling Statements:			Yes
u. Prior Board Review:				No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant successfully completing Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC), she was commissioned as a second lieutenant on 12 May 1995 and entered active duty on 19 June 1995.  She was 22 years old at the time and a college graduate.  The applicant’s record shows she received an MSM, two ARCOMs, and an AAM.  

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence of record shows that on 19 November 2010, the applicant was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2a(16), due to substandard performance of duty for failure to establish an adequate Family Care Plan in accordance with AR 600-20, Paragraph 5-5.

2.  The applicant was directed to show cause for retention in the Army based on an inadequate  Family Care Plan and, by her own admission, being unable to complete.

3.  Based on the above offense, the Commanding General (CG), Headquarters, Fort Carson, CO, indicated he was recommending the applicant’s discharge from the Army with a characterization of service of honorable.

4.  On 5 January 2011, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily tendered her resignation from the Army in writing, under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 600-8-24, in lieu of further elimination proceedings.  The applicant indicates she understood she could receive an HD as determined by HQDA.  She elected to waive her right to submit any matters in explanation, rebuttal, or defense concerning the allegations in her case.  

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

6.  On 12 January 2011, the CG, Headquarters, Fort Carson, CO, considered the applicant’s additional matters and recommended separation from the US Army, with a characterization of service of honorable.

7.  The Department of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board reviewed the resignation in lieu of elimination tendered by the applicant based on substandard performance.

8.  On 28 January 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 honorable.   

9.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 25 February 2011, with a characterization of service of honorable, under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2a(16), due to substandard performance of duty for failure to establish an adequate Family Care Plan.

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.  Two counseling statements dated between 12 October 2010 and 17 November 2010, pertaining to the Family Care Plan.

2.  An Annual OER (091101-101031), the rater assessed her as Outstanding Performance/Must Promote and the senior rater as Best Qualified/Center of Mass.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided two copies of an online DD Form 293, DD Form 214; AR 600-8-24, pages 57-58, appointment documents, an Academic Evaluation report (Ordinance Maintenance Management Officer Basic Course), dated 1 November 1995, CPT promotion orders, dated 15 march 2002, MAJ promotion orders, dated 20 October 2008, and AMHRR documents, 38 pages.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None were 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 to have the narrative reason (Substandard Performance) removed from her DD Form 214 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 removal of the narrative reason.  

2.  The applicant requested a change to the narrative reason for separation.  The narrative reason for separation is governed by specific directives.  The applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2a, AR 600-8-24.  The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Substandard Performance" and the separation code is "JHK."  

3.  The applicant contends she served fourteen years (active duty and reserves), and the Army  could have sent her any where they wanted.  She could not provide a valid Family Care Plan for their 6 month old baby and 15-year old son due to uncontrollable circumstances, therefore the narrative reason should be removed from her DD Form 214.  However, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2a, AR 600-8-24.  The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Substandard Performance" and the separation code is "JHK."  

4.  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, separation code, entered in block 26, and RE Code, entered in block 27 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 is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. 

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

6.  Therefore, the narrative reason for separation was both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief.













SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing:  Records Review	Date:  25 October 2013	Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  NA

Counsel:  None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Board Vote:
Character  	Change:  NA	  No Change:  NA
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:	NA
Change Reason to:			No Change
Change Authority for Separation:	NA
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	UOTHC - Under Other Than                           			               Honorable Conditions
ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont)		AR20130004196

Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1