IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	5 March 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130010325
___________________________________________________________________________

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 that his general, under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was transferred to 3BSTB to fill the position of battalion maintenance officer (BMO) two months prior to deployment to Balad, Iraq.  The maintenance program was in horrible condition when he arrived and he had to be stern with the NCO leadership and Soldiers.  In roughly December 2011, he had a Soldier who was ordering parts through the wrong system.  He caught her doing so several times and decided to write her up and recommended UCMJ actions.  The following morning that Soldier filed sexual harassment charges against him.  These charges were dropped because the incident did not happen; however, he was reprimanded for comments that he did not make.  In the investigation, it clearly stated that the accuser talked in detail about the investigation to her roommate when she was ordered to stay quiet.  After receiving the reprimanded, he was recommended for separation from the military.  He requested an appearance before a board but was denied because a decision was made before his three anniversary date.  He served four tours in Iraq and one in Bosnia during his 16 year career.  

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:	                     31 May 2013
b. Discharge Received:			General, Under Honorable Conditions 
c. Date of Discharge:				23 August 2011				
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		Unacceptable Conduct, AR 600-8-24 								paragraph 4-2b, JNC, NA
e. Unit of assignment:				3d Brigade Special Troops Battalion 								(Rear)(Provisional), 3d Brigade Combat Team, 							4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, CO 
f. Current Entry Date/Term:			USAR-5 August 2008, 6 years 		
g. Current Term Net Active Service:		3 years, 18 days	
h. Total Service:				18 years, 2 months, 1 day
i. Time Lost:					None
j. Previous Discharges:			USAR (930622-940613), NA									RA (940614-961006), HD										RA (9610070-991006), HD										ARNG (991007-000615), HD									USAR (000616-001011), HD									RA (001012-030106), HD										RA (030107-050423), HD										RA (050424-080504), HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			W-2
l. Branch:					915A0, Automotive Maintenance
m. GT Score:					NA
n. Education:					2 years of College 
o. Overseas Service:				SWA, Bosnia
p. Combat Service:				Iraq/Kuwait x 4 (030113-031230, 041216-							051129, 071102-080517, and 100322-110228)
q. Decorations/Awards:			ARCOM-3, AAM-2, AGCM-3, NDSM, ICM-							w/CS-4, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, NDSM, ACM-							2, GWOTSM, AFSM, NPDR-2, ASR, OSR, 							NATO MDL
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 USAR (Delay Entry Program) on 22 June 1993.  He was 17 years at the time and was as a high school graduate.  He served in the Regular Army, the ARNG and in the USAR before being appointed as a warrant officer on 5 August 2008.  He was 32 years old at the time and a college graduate.  The applicant’s record shows he was awarded three ARCOMs, two AAMs, and three AGCMs.  His Officer Record Brief (ORB) indicates he served four tours in a combat zone.  

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence of record shows that on 6 May 2011, the applicant was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b and 4-2(c), due to his misconduct.

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

	a.  Substantiated derogatory activity resulting in a GOMOR, dated 11 March 2011, that was filed in his AMHRR.  He was reprimanded for repeatedly engaging in sexual conversations with his subordinates in which he described piercings on his genitalia and expressed his desire to engage in sex acts with his female subordinates; and

	b.  Conduct unbecoming an officer as indicated by the above-referenced GOMOR.

3.  Based on the above offenses, the senior commander, Fort Carson, CO, indicated he was recommending the applicant’s discharge from the Army with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  The applicant was advised that he could submit his request for resignation in lieu of elimination according to AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4.  The request may not include an effective date since the effective date will be determined lAW AR 600-8-24, Paragraph 4-5.

4.  The case separation document is void of the election of rights memorandum.  There is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  
5.  The company and battalion commander recommended approval of the separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

6.  On 6 June 2011, the senior commander, Fort Carson, CO, considered the applicant’s additional matters and recommended separation from the US Army, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

7.  On 25 July 2011, the Acting 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 discharged from the Army on 23 August 2011, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions, under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b, 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.  Three OERs covering the period 5 August 2008 through 17 June 2010.  The applicant was rated “Best Qualified” on each report.

2.  A 15-6, Report of Investigation, dated 13 February 2011, for the alleged misconduct.

3.  A GOMOR, dated 6 April 2011, for admitting to making comments in a joking manner that could be considered offensive towards other Soldiers.  These comments created an environment where Soldiers could feel uncomfortable and affect their abilities to accomplish their mission.  His actions created unnecessary stress towards his Soldiers and his chain of command. 

4.  Relief for Cause OER (100618-110505), the rater assessed him as Unsatisfactory Performance/Do Not Promote and the senior rater as Do Not Promote/no block check.

5.  Academic Evaluation Report (081114), Automotive Maintenance, applicant achieved course standards.  

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided an online application DD Form 293 and a DD Form 214.

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.

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 issues 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.  He contends a female falsely accused him of sexual harassment due to recommending her for UCMJ actions, he was reprimanded for comments that he did not make, and the accuser talked in detail about the investigation to her roommate when she was ordered to stay quiet.  The applicant’s contentions were noted; however, his 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.  The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity. No additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the applicant’s request for an upgrade of the discharge.   

4.  The applicant contends that he served four tours in Iraq and one in Bosnia during his 16 year career.  He believes his good service merits an honorable discharge.  However, the applicant’s repeated incidents of unacceptable behavior, as reflected in the 15-6 report of investigation, showed the applicant’s service was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization.    

5.  The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 
6.  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:  Records Review       Date:  5 March 2014       Location:  Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  NA 

Counsel:  None

Witnesses/Observers:  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:	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)		AR20130010325



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1