IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	12 February 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130017753
___________________________________________________________________________

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 an upgrade to his general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, the issues for which he was discharged were due to his inability to handle his personal life.  He has since changed and is currently in rehabilitation classes for alcohol and gambling.  He contends he did not receive a citation for the incidents and was never given the opportunity to provide information to anyone above his battalion level chain of command that may have shed light on his character.
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			26 September 2013
b. Discharge Received:			General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				24 June 2013
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		Unacceptable Conduct, AR 600-8-24, 
Paragraph 4-2B, JNC, NA
e. Unit of assignment:				Bravo Battery, 1-30th Field Artillery, Fort Sill,
OK
f. Current Entry Date/Term:			8 June 2011/4 years
g. Current Term Net Active Service:		2 years, 17 days
h. Total Service:				6 years, 11 months, 12 days
i. Time Lost:					None
j. Previous Discharges:			USAR, (060714-070223), HD
USAR, (070901-110607), NIF
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			O-1
l. Branch:					Field Artillery
m. GT Score:					NA
n. Education:					College Graduate
o. Overseas Service:				None
p. Combat Service:				None
q. Decorations/Awards:			AAM, NDSM, ASR
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 Regular Army on 1 September 2007 for a period of 8 years.  After successfully completing the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC), he was commissioned as second lieutenant on 1 May 2011.  He was 24 years old at the time of entry and a college graduate.  He earned an AAM and completed 6 years, 11 months, 12 days of total military service.  When his discharge proceedings were initiated, his Officer Record Brief (ORB) indicates he was a student at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence of record shows that on 28 September 2012, the applicant was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2a, substandard performance and 4-2b, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction.

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

     a.  A GOMOR dated 23 July 2012, for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.

     b.  A GOMOR dated 3 July 2012, for being arrested by the Comanche Nation Police at the Comanche Nation Casino because he was heavily intoxicated and acting unprofessionally, to include harassing one of the patrons. 

3.  On 13 December 2012, the applicant was once again notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2a, substandard performance and 4-2b, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction.

4.  Based on the above offenses, the Commanding General (CG), Headquarters, United States Army Fires Center of Excellence and Fort Sill, Fort Sill, Oklahoma, indicated he was recommending the applicant’s discharge from the Army with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

5.  The record is void of the applicant’s election of rights; 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.

6.  On 7 January 2013, the applicant submitted a rebuttal statement to the elimination packet.  In his statement he requested to be retained in the Army.  However, if he was to be discharged, he requested an honorable discharge.  He stated his mistakes were on two lapses in judgment over a four year career and do not define him.  He also requested a waiver for paying back his ROTC scholarship. 

7.  On 8 March 2013, the CG, Headquarters, United States Army Fires Center of Excellence and Fort Sill, Fort Sill, Oklahoma, considered the applicant’s additional matters and recommended separation from the US Army, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

8.  The Department of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board reviewed the probationary officer elimination case on the applicant based on misconduct and moral or professional dereliction.
9.  On 22 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 general, under honorable conditions.   

10.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 24 June 2013, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions, under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b, for unacceptable conduct.

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

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  A GOMOR, dated 3 July 2012, for being arrested by the Comanche Nation Police at the Comanche Nation Casino because he was heavily intoxicated and acting unprofessionally, to include harassing one of the patrons.  The matter was referred to the Criminal Investigative Division (CID), and when initially questioned about the incident, he lied about some of the facts relating to his conduct.

2.  A GOMOR, dated 23 July 2012, for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.

3.  A CID Investigative Report, dated 7 June 2012, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for wrongful sexual contact. 

4.  There was no record of negative counseling statements or actions under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD 293, dated 19 September 2013, addressing his contentions, a undated letter to MG M, a self-authored statement, dated 31 July 2012, and an excerpt from a law enforcement document indicating probable cause did not exist that the applicant committed wrongful sexual contact. 

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant states he is currently taking rehabilitation classes for alcohol and gambling.

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 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.  Further, the applicant’s 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.  

4.  The applicant contends his discharge was due to his inability to handle his personal life.  However, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review.  

5.  The applicant contends that although the incident was reported to his unit, he did not receive a citation and he was not given the opportunity to meet with his chain of command above the battalion level.  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.  The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this issue.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discriminated.  The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge.  Further, the applicant was afforded the opportunity and did respond in writing on 
7 January 2013, to the notification to eliminate him from military service.

6.  The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.  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:  12 February 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)		AR20130017753



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1