IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	18 December 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130007972
___________________________________________________________________________

Board Determination and Directed Action

1. After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and notwithstanding the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the narrative reason for discharge was too harsh based on the quality of the applicant's service, circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e., paragraph 4-2a more appropriate reason), and as a result it is inequitable.  

2. Accordingly, the Board voted to change the applicant’s reason for discharge, authority, separation code, and directed the DD Form 214 be reissued with the following changes:

                a.  block 25, separation authority changed to AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2a

b.  block 26, separation code changed to JHK

c.  block 28, narrative reason for separation changed to Substandard Performance 
3.  Except for the foregoing modifications, the Board determined the discharge was both proper and equitable.




      
      
      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 a narrative reason change.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he honorably served in the Army for six years both as an enlisted infantryman and an officer in the Chaplain’s Corps.  A letter from his most recent brigade commander attests to his honorable service.  A review of his evaluations will show his service as exemplary.  His most recent report is the only outlier, which he contends the report was prepared and supported by unverified, untrue, and biased information.  His rating chain failed to exercise the neutrality in the rating process as required by the governing regulation.  Ultimately, the report served as the basis for his separation.  He accepts responsibility for his actions, though his actions were not indicative of misconduct.  He continues to contest the evaluation.  
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		24 April 2013 
b. Discharge Received:		Honorable
c. Date of Discharge:			28 March 2013
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Unacceptable Conduct, AR 600-8-24, paragraph
   4-2b, JNC, NA
e. Unit of assignment:			43 CS Sustainment Brigade, Ft Carson, CO
f. Current Entry Date/Term	:	10 January 2013/Indefinite
g. Current Term Net Active Service:	3 years, 2 months, 19 days
h. Total Service:			6 years, 1 month, 21 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		RA (070208-100109), HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		O-3
l. Branch:				Chaplain
m. GT Score:				119
n. Education:				BA Degree
o. Overseas Service:			SWA, Germany 
p. Combat Service:			Iraq
q. Decorations/Awards:		ARCOM, AAM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM w/CS, ASR 
      OSR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	Yes
s. Performance Ratings:		Yes
t. Counseling Statements:		Yes
u. Prior Board Review:			No


SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 February 2007.  He was ordered to active duty as a direct commission to first lieutenant on 14 October 2009.  He was 25 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.  

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence of record shows that on 18 October 2012, the applicant was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2a(1-5), b(5), (8) and c(5), due to substandard performance, misconduct, and moral or professional dereliction.

2.  The applicant was directed to show cause for retention in the Army.  He was advised that he could submit a sworn or unsworn statement, submit a rebuttal statement, resign in lieu of elimination, or request for discharge.  The show cause was based on the following offenses:

     a.  Substantiated derogatory information resulting in a referred OER. 
     b.  Conduct unbecoming an officer.

3.  On 10 November 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.  The battalion, and brigade commanders recommended approval of the applicant’s elimination from the US Army with an honorable characterization of service.

5.  Based on the above offenses, the Commanding General (CG), Headquarters, 4th Infantry Division and Fort Carson, Fort Carson, CO, indicated he was recommending the applicant’s discharge from the Army with a characterization of service of honorable conditions.

6.  On 7 March 2013, 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 honorable conditions.   

7.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 28 March 2013, with a characterization of service of honorable, under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, AR 600-8-24, for unacceptable conduct.

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



EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Six negative counseling statements dated between 22 March 2012 and 14 September 2012, for issues related to spitting, religious accommodations, religious support, and appearance, attention to detail, backwards planning, unprofessional counsel, and elimination flag.

2. Relief for Cause OER (111101-120706), the rater assessed him as Unsatisfactory Performance/Do Not Promote and the senior rater as Do Not Promote/no block check.

3.  Permanent Change of Station OER (110420-121031), the rater assessed him as Outstanding Performance/Must Promote and the senior rater as Best Qualified.

4.  Extended Annual OER (100109-110419), the rater assessed him as Outstanding Performance/Must Promote and the senior rater as Best Qualified.

5.  DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), dated 9 April 2010 for achieving course standards in the Chaplain Basic Officer Leader Course.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided an online application, 23 letters of support, and a copy of a Physical Profile, dated 24 November 2009.

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.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating officers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.  It identifies the SPD code of “JNC” as the appropriate code to assign officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interests of national security.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1. The applicant’s request for a change to the reason for his discharge was carefully considered.  However, after examining the applicant’s service record, the documents and the issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit a change to the narrative reason for the discharge.    

2.  The applicant’s substandard performance, misconduct, and moral or professional dereliction compromised the special trust and confidence placed in an officer.  The applicant, as an officer, had the duty to fulfill his obligations as an Army officer.  

3.  The applicant contends that a change in the reason for the discharge is more appropriate.  However, Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.  It identifies the SPD code of “JNC” as the appropriate code to assign officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interests of national security.  The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized.  

4.  The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant’s performance.  They all recognize his good conduct while serving in the Army; however, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant’s chain of command.  As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity.  Of note, consideration was given to the letter from the applicant’s brigade commander, however as previously stated the governing regulation defines the appropriate code as it pertains to the circumstances resulting in the applicant’s discharge.

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



SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing:  Records Review     Date:  18 December 2013      Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No 

Counsel:  yes [redacted]

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

Board Action Directed:
Issue a new DD Form 214:		Yes
Change Characterization to:	NA
Change Reason to:			Substandard Performance
Change Authority for Separation:	AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2a
Change RE Code to:		NA
Grade Restoration to:		NA
Other:					Separation Program Designator (SPD) code JHK





















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)		AR20130007972



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1