IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr.

      BOARD DATE:  	10 February 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130013218
___________________________________________________________________________

Board Determination and Directed Action

After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony and notwithstanding the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined that the characterization of service was improper based on the applicant not being afforded a separation board.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable conditions.  The Board further determined the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it.  





      
      
      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 an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable and a change to the narrative reason.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, his discharge was inequitable because it was his only incident of misconduct in 16 years of military service.  He was going through a divorce, drank too much the night before in the billets, and did not report for class the following morning at Fort Bragg.  He was issued a GOMOR and sent home.  He returned to USAR duty and was doing well. His intent was to be a good Soldier, receive several good OERs and to apply to the DASEB for a transfer of the GOMOR.  He also contends the discharge action was initiated by a new commander and he was caught totally off guard.  He also contends he served honorably during the nine months following the incident by being placed in position of trust.  He believes his discharge was improper because he was never issued any documentation or communication prior to or after the discharge, nor was any discharge certificate prepared, nor was there any statutory opportunity for appeal.  He is remorseful for the misconduct that happened 13 years ago, and has paid a terrible price for it.  The absence of a properly prepared discharge certificate in his records adds further weight to his contention that the discharge was irregular and improper.  He would also like to note his post-service accomplishments including winning the Colbert Prize and graduating with highest distinction from the Naval War College, six years of federal service and the fact he is a professional actor and screenwriter.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			16 July 2013
b. Discharge Received:			General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				21 January 1999				
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		Acts of Personal Misconduct, AR 135-175, 							paragraph 2-12n and o, DFS, NA
e. Unit of assignment:				416th Civil Affairs Bn, 1020 Sandy Street, 							Norristown, PA	
f. Current Entry Date/Term:			1 June 1991/USAR, NIF		
g. Current Term Net Active Service:		7 years, 7 months, 21 days	
h. Total Service:				15 years, 10 months, 12 days
i. Time Lost:					None
j. Previous Discharges:			ARNG-830310-870730/HD										USARCG-870801-870818/NA									ARNG-870819-900727/HD										USARCG-900728-910531/NA
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			O-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		13E, Cannon Field Artillery Officer
m. GT Score:					NA
n. Education:					College Graduate
o. Overseas Service:				NIF
p. Combat Service:				NIF
q. Decorations/Awards:			AAM, ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 		No
s. Performance Ratings:			Yes
t. Counseling Statements:			No
u. Prior Board Review:				Yes, 10 May 2013, Deny								
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		

The applicant was commissioned as a second lieutenant on 31 July 1987.  He was 21 years old at the time and a college graduate.  He attended the Field Artillery Basic Course and Civil Affairs Officer Advanced Course.  His record reflects he achieved the rank of captain and earned an AAM.  He completed a total of 15 years, 10 months, and 12 days of service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The available evidence shows the applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the United States Army Reserve.  

2.  The record indicates that on 21 January 1999, Department of the Army, Headquarters, United States Army Special Operation Command, Fort Bragg, NC, Orders R021-4, discharged the applicant from the United States Army Reserve, effective 21 January 1999, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  The “additional instructions” paragraph of the said order makes reference to the applicant being relieved due to acts of personal misconduct.

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

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  A GOMOR, for failing to report to the company commander's office, being drunk on duty with a blood alcohol content of .21%, failing to report for duty, and misleading his commander about a relative's death on 21 April 1998.

2.  A negative counseling statement, dated 22 April 1998, for being drunk on duty and lying about having a death in his family. 

3.  Three successful officer evaluation reports (OERs) covering the period of 19 August 1987 to 19 July 1990.  

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided an online application for upgrade of his discharge, copy of his discharge orders, extract pages from AR 135-175, copy of the GOMOR and allied documents, copies of certificates; DA Form 1059; email communication; and photos, graduate school transcripts, Naval War College transcripts, a copy of a divorce decree, FY 2013 Non-Supervisory Performance Plan, a letter of recommendation for admission to the Oxford University Doctor of Philosophy in International Relations programs, a letter of support from the GOMOR imposing authority, a copy of a resume, and AMHRR documents.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

His post-service includes winning the Colbert Prize, graduating from the Naval War College, six years of federal service and a career as a professional actor and screenwriter.

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

1.  Army Regulation 135-175 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of officers from the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), except for officers serving on active duty or active duty training exceeding 90 days.  Chapters 2 and 3 provide the basis for involuntary separation of USAR officers.  Specific categories include substandard performance of duty, moral or professional dereliction, in the interest of national security, as a result of trial by court martial, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or absence without proper authority from unit training.  

2.  Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge and narrative reason changer was carefully considered.  However, after examining the applicant’s available 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.  The service record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the United States Army Reserve.

2.  The applicant’s record contains a properly constituted Order which was authenticated by the appropriate military authority.  This document identifies the characterization of the discharge and the presumption of government regularity prevails in the discharge process.

3.  Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

4.  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the type of discharge he received from the United States Army Reserve.

5.  The applicant contends his discharge is inequitable because he only had one incident of misconduct in 16 years of service.  The applicant's contentions were carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon these contentions.  Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs.  This presumption is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his contentions.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support these contentions that he was unjustly discharged.

6.  The applicant also contends his discharge is improper because he was never issued any documentation or communication prior to or after the discharge.  Nor was there any discharge certificate prepared; and there wasn't any statutory opportunity for appeal.  However, the evidence of record shows the applicant was issued discharge orders, dated 21 January 1999, which indicates he was discharged on 21 January 1999 with a general, under honorable conditions discharge for acts of personal misconduct.  

7.  The creation of discharge certificates is not within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  If the applicant believes there is an error or injustice in his discharge documents, he may submit an application to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, using DD Form 149, which can be obtained online or from a Veterans Service Organization.

8.  The applicant notes his post-service accomplishments including winning the Colbert Prize,  graduating with highest distinction from the Naval War College, six years of federal service and a career as a professional actor and screenwriter.  The applicant’s post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application and in the documents with the application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record and the reasons for the discharge, it appears that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  

9.  Therefore, based on the available evidence and the presumption of government regularity, it appears the reason for discharge and the characterization of service are both proper and equitable, thus recommend the Board deny relief. 















SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing: Personal Appearance    Date: 10 February 2014    Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?   Yes

Counsel: Larry Provost, The American Legion, 1608 K Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006

Witnesses/Observers:  KHD – Former BN FDO, ILARNG, KOD, NWC; JC, Coworker; 
MW, NWC; AK, Actor; JB, NWC

DOCUMENTS/TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE:

1.  The applicant submitted the following additional documents:

	a.  Summary Brief – Self Authored Statement – 2 pages
	b.  AR 135-176, various pages – 4 pages
	c.  Memorandum – dated 9 July 1998 – 2 pages
	d.  Naval War College Honor Graduate nomination – 1 page
	e.  USAJFRSWCS Reg 350-12 – 1 page
	f.   Naval War College academic recommendation – 1 page
	g.  Illinois Guard Commendation letter – 1 page
	h.  Bataan Memorial Death March certificate – 1 page
	i.   Letter of acceptance NATO internship – 1 page
	j.   Letter of interest AFPAR  - 1 page
	k.  USACE letter - 1 page

2.  The applicant presented the additional contention:

	a.  Change narrative reason for separation to ‘Secretarial Authority’.

In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional documents and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing.

Board Vote:
Character Change:  3	No Change:  2
Reason Change:	2	No Change:  3
(Board member names available upon request)








Board Action Directed:
Issue a new DD Form 214:		No
Change Characterization to:	Honorable
Change Reason to:			No Change
Change Authority for Separation:	NA
Change RE Code to:		NA
Grade Restoration to:		NA
Other:	   TO: ARBA Promulgation Team. Arlington, VA                      Date: 10 February 2014

     The Army Discharge Review Board, under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section 1553, in the case of the applicant named in page 1, directs the ARBA Promulgation Team, Arlington, VA to issue a new discharge order to the applicant which reflects the following directed changes:

           ( X  )	Change characterization of discharge 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)		AR20130013218



Page 2 of 7 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1