IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	2 October 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130005163
___________________________________________________________________________

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 her general, under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, she did not commit adultery.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		11 March 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			4 September 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Unacceptable Conduct, AR 600-8-24, 								paragraph 4-2b, JNC, NA
e. Unit of assignment:			D Co, 3-60th Infantry Regiment, 193rd Infantry 							Brigade, Fort Jackson, SC
f. Current Entry Date/Term:		12 August 2010, NIF years
g. Current Service under review:	2 years, 23 days
h. Total Service:			9 years, 1 month, 1 day
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		USAF-(040224-100503)/HD									RA (100504-100811)/HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		O-2
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	91A, Maintenance/Munitions Materiel
m. GT Score:				NA
n. Education:				BA (Sociology)
o. Overseas Service:			None
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, USAFCOM, USAFGCM 						USAFOUA, USAFBMTHGR, USAFLSAR, USAFTR 						USAFNCOPMEGR, MUC
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		No
t. Counseling Statements:		No
u. Prior Board Review:			No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:
	
The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Air Force on 24 February 2004.  She was 19 years old and was discharged honorably on 3 May 2010.  She attended Officer Candidate School between     4 May 2010 and 11 August 2010 and graduated successfully.  The applicant was commissioned as a second lieutenant on 12 August 2010.  She was 25 years old at the time and a college graduate.  She was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 91A, Maintenance/Munitions Materiel.  Her record does not contain any evidence of acts of valor or meritorious achievements and she achieved the rank of 1LT/O-2.  She was serving at Fort Jackson, SC when separation action was initiated.
SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence of record shows that on 25 April 2012, the applicant was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, AR 600-8-24, by reason of misconduct.  Specifically for the following offenses:

    a.  receiving a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) for poor judgment and a lack of self discipline (100328)

    b.  the reprimand being based on two separate occasions of engaging in sexual intercourse while other individuals were in the same room

2.  The applicant was directed to show cause for retention in the Army.  She was advised that she could submit a sworn or unsworn statement, submit a rebuttal statement, resign in lieu of elimination, or request for discharge.  

3.  On 8 June 2012, 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).  

4.  On 8 June 2012, the acting Commander, DA, HQS, U.S. Army Training Center and Fort Jackson, Fort Jackson, SC, 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. 

5.  On 14 August 2012, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Army Board of Review and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.   

6.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 4 September 2012, 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.

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

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  She received a GOMOR, dated 22 April 2012, for poor judgment and a lack of self discipline, (administrative).

2.  The record contains two Officer Evaluations Reports (OERs), covering the periods of 29 January 2011 through 1 March 2012, the applicant was rated “fully Qualified” and 3 March 2012 through 15 March 2012, the applicant was rated as “Other.”

3.  The record also contains a certificate of completion, dated 25 March 2011 for graduating from Victory University Cadre Training Course.

4.  Two DA Forms 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), dated 12 January 2011 for exceeding course standards in the Basic Officer Leader Course and 28 January 2011 achieving course standards in the Mortuary Affairs Officer Course.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided DD Form 149, two DD Forms 214, General Officer Memorandum (GOMOR), Memorandum, filing of memorandum of reprimand, Memorandum, initiation of elimination, four pages, Letter of Recommendation, Memorandum, Request for family care plan separation, three pages, two DA Forms 2823 (Sworn Statements), six pages, Officer Record Brief (ORB), two DA Forms 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), Certificate of Completion, Suicide Prevention, Letter of Commendation, twelve Certificates of Completion, Certificate of Appreciation, Letter of Appreciation, Air Force Commendation Medal, Certificate, Distinguished Graduate, two Certificates, Academic Achievement Award, two Promotion Certificates, Memorandum, Graduation Notification, Fitness Certificate, two Certificate of Recognition, and a Certificate, Airman of the Week.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant stated on her application she is working to earn a master’s degree in social work and a guardian ad litem and an intern with the Department of Juvenile Justice.

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 her 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 her 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 her misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of her 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 her service mitigated the unacceptable conduct or poor duty performance.

4.  The applicant contends she did not commit adultery.  The evidence of record shows she received a GOMOR for poor judgment and a lack of self discipline.  Initiation of elimination was based on the applicant receiving a GOMOR for poor judgment, lack of self discipline and engaging in sexual intercourse while other individuals were in the same room.  None of the separation documents cited adultery as a reason for the separation.

5.  Further, the record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.   The character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall service record.

6.  The third party statement provided with the application speaks highly of the applicant’s performance and character.  The author of this statement also accepted responsibility for the incident which led to her separation from the Army.  However, the person providing the character reference statement was not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant’s chain of command.  As such, this statement did not provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity.

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

8.  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:  Record Review      Date:  2 October 2013       Location:  Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify:  No 

Counsel:  NA

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	UOTHC - Under Other Than                           			               Honorable Conditions


ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont)		AR20130005163



Page 2 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1