IN THE CASE OF:  	Ms. 

      BOARD DATE:  	23 June 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130015918
___________________________________________________________________________

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 a change to the narrative reason for separation.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she recently separated from the Army after 12 years of honorable service as a chief warrant officer (CWO).  Her husband is also a CWO (dual military).  He is still in the Army and is currently deployed in Afghanistan.  She brought her concerns to her command and they decided it was best if she separated from the military because of the inability to produce a valid family care plan.  She is writing so that the injustice and double standard the Army has concerning enlisted members who are involuntarily separated due to child care issues and commissioned officers who are involuntarily separated due to child care issues are changed.  This disparity also gives enlisted Soldiers the entitlement to separation pay while officers are not entitled to separation pay.  Most importantly, she is also asking to have this made retroactive so that Soldiers with similar situations can have their DD 214s updated to reflect the change and receive the separation pay they should be entitled to.  
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			29 August 2013
b. Discharge Received:			Honorable  
c. Date of Discharge:				7 June 2013				
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		Substandard Performance, AR 600-8-24 							paragraph 4-2a, JHK, NA
e. Unit of assignment:				HHC, 1st Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 1st 						Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division 						(Light Infantry), Fort Drum, NY	
f. Current Entry Date/Term:			15 June 2010, 6 years 		
g. Current Term Net Active Service:		2 years, 10 months, 23 days	
h. Total Service:				12 years, 2 months, 3 days
i. Time Lost:					None
j. Previous Discharges:			RA (010405-040601), HD										RA (040602-050525), HD										RA (050526-070625), HD										RA (070626-100614), HD										(Concurrent Service)
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			CW2
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		Property Accounting Technician
m. GT Score:					NA
n. Education:					College Graduate
o. Overseas Service:				SWA x 2 
p. Combat Service:				Kuwait (2003, 3 months ) Afghanistan (2010, 							11 months)
q. Decorations/Awards:			BSM, MSM, ARCOM-2, AAM-7, AGCM-3, 							NDSM, ACM-w/CS, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, 							NPDR-2, ASR, OSR, NATO MDL
r. Administrative Separation Board: 		No  
s. Performance Ratings:			Yes
t. Counseling Statements:			Yes
u. Prior Board Review:				No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 April 2001.  She reenlisted three times and was appointed as a warrant officer on 15 June 2010.  She was 28 years old at the time and a college graduate.  The applicant’s record shows she was awarded a BSM, two ARCOMs, seven AAMs, three AGCMs, two NCOPDRs, and served a combat tour in Kuwait and Afghanistan.  

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence of record shows that on 19 March 2013, the applicant was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2a, due to substandard performance of duty.  

2.  The applicant was directed to show cause for retention in the Army based on being identified as having failed to establish an adequate Family Care Plan (121105).

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

4.  The applicant’s record is void of the election of rights memorandum; however, 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, battalion, and brigade commanders recommended approval of the applicant’s elimination from the US Army with an honorable characterization of service.

6.  On 2 April 2013, the CG, Headquarters, Fort Drum, NY, 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 recommendation of the General Officer Show Cause Authority, that the applicant be involuntarily eliminated from the United States Army.  This elimination is based on substandard performance of duty (Army
Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2a). 

8.  On 3 May 2013, 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 7 June 2013, with a characterization of service of honorable, under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2a, for substandard performance.

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 5 October 2012 and 5 November 2012, informing the applicant about creating a family care plan within 30 days and the ramifications.  

2.  Three successful OERs covering the period 15 July 2010 through 7 June 2013.  The applicant was rated “Best Qualified” with recommendations for promotion.  

3.  Family Care Plan Separation Counseling Checklist.  

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided an online DD Form 293, DD Form 214, and a counseling statement, dated 5 November 2012.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant contends she is a stay at home mother. 

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 Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.  It identifies the SPD code of "JHK" as the appropriate code to assign Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2a, substandard performance.  


ANALYST’S DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The applicant’s request for a change to the narrative reason for her 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 contends she brought her concerns to her command and they decided it was best if she separated from the military because of the inability to produce a valid family care plan.  The applicant was discharged for her inability to perform prescribed duties due to parenthood under the provisions of Chapter 4-2a, AR 600-8-24.  This involuntary separation was appropriate since the command determined the applicant’s parental obligations interfered with the fulfillment of military responsibilities and she was properly informed as to the specific factors in her service record that would warrant such a characterization. 

3.  The applicant contends that AR 600-8-24 needs to be revised so that officers being involuntarily separated due to failure to establish a valid family care plan are categorized as “parenthood” and not “substandard performance” and classified as “convenience of the government”.  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 "JHK" as the appropriate code to assign officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2a, for substandard performance.  The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized.  

4.  The applicant requests to receive retroactive separation pay she feels she is entitled to.  She is also asking to have this made available to other Soldiers with similar situations and their DD 214s updated to reflect the change.  However, the applicant’s requested retroactive separation pay and a change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of this Board.  The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter.  A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. 

5.  The record confirms that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

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

7.  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:  23 June 2014        Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No

Counsel:  None

Witnesses/Observers:  No

Board Vote:
Character Change:  NA	No Change:  NA
Reason Change:	1	No Change:  4
(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)		AR20130015918



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1