1.	APPLICANT’S NAME:  

	a.	Application Date:  28 May 2014

	b.	Date Received:  28 May 2014

	c.	Counsel:  None

2.	REQUEST, REASON, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION:  The applicant requests to upgrade the characterization of her discharge from general, under honorable conditions to an honorable discharge and to change the narrative reason for her discharge.  The applicant, in pertinent part and in effect, states her discharge was inequitable and improper because it was a retaliatory action for her communicating a protected report of misconduct that was not consistent with the traditions of the Army.  She detailed the events leading to her discharge.  She adds since her discharge, she has struggled being a single parent to a 15-year-old son and a three-year-old autistic daughter.  She was unable to obtain employment and was on food stamps, Medicaid, and other social services and subsequently lost her son to suicide.  Since she no longer had the income and resources from the Army, she became homeless, until spring 2013, while maintaining her enrollment in a law school and will be graduating in October 2015.  

In a records review conducted at Arlington, Virginia, on 9 September 2015, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board after carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length of service, to include her combat her service and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e., the appearance of an incomplete mental health treatment and diagnosis) and as a result it is inequitable.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable.  However, the Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it.  
	(Board member names available upon request.)

3.	DISCHARGE DETAILS:

	a.	Reason/Authority/Codes/Characterization:  Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Paragraph 4-2b / JNC / NA / General, Under Honorable Conditions

	b.	Date of Discharge:  3 November 2011

	c.	Separation Facts:  

		(1)	Date of Notification of Intent to Separate:  2 June 2011

		(2)	Basis for Separation:  The applicant was directed to show cause for retention in the Army under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2a(8), 4-2b(5), and 4-2b(8) for failing to conform to the prescribed standards of military deportment, acts of personal misconduct, and conduct unbecoming of an officer.  Specifically, for the following reasons:  
		
	Behaving with disrespect towards her commander on 29 July 2010, which resulted in a GOMOR issued on 16 September 2011; and,
		On 4 April 2011, making a false official statement to CPT T.; on 5 April 2011, disobeying a lawful command and behaving with disrespect towards from CPT T.; on 8 April 2011, disobeying a lawful order and behaving with disrespect towards LTC H., all of which resulted in a GO Article 15 imposed on 17 May 2011; and conduct unbecoming of an officer as indicated by the above-referenced GOMOR and GO Article 15.  
		(3)	Recommended Characterization:  General, Under Honorable Conditions 

		(4)	Legal Consultation Date:  3 June 2011

		(5)	Request for Resignation Date:  5 July 2011; however, through her counsel, she withdrew her request indicating she would submit rebuttal matters directly to HRC.

		(6)	Notification to Appear before BOI Date:  14 July 2011; however, due to withdrawing her resignation request, the General Officer Show Cause Authority (GOSCA) indicated the action would not be held and thereby, delaying its processing by HRC.  The GOSCA recommended separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, and forwarded the action to another GOSCA for an unbiased recommendation.

		(7)	DA Ad Hoc Review Board Recommendation: General, Under Honorable Conditions  

		(8)	Separation Decision Date/Characterization:  13 October 2011 / General, Under Honorable Conditions 

4.	SERVICE DETAILS:

	a.	Date/Period of Enlistment:  11 May 2010 / 36 months of ADSO (Active Duty Service Obligation)

	b.	Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score:  37 / BS Degree / NA

	c.	Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service:  O-2 / 70B, Health Services Administrator/ 13 years, 10 months, 16 days
  
	d.	Prior Service/Characterizations:  DEP (30 November 1993-3 February 1994) / NA
						          RA (4 February 1994-3 February 1997) / GD
						          USAR (18 December 2000-17 December 2001) / HD
						          USAR (18 December 2001-11 February 2002) / HD
						          USAR (29 May 2002-12 April 2007) / HD
						          USAR (13 April 2007-10 May 2010) / NA
  
	e.	Overseas Service/Combat Service:  None / None
  
	f.	Awards and Decorations:  AAM; NDSM-2; GWOTSM; ASR
  
	g.	Performance Ratings:  Yes
  
	h.	Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record:  General Officer Article 15, dated 17 May 2011, for making a false official statement on 4 April 2011, behaving with disrespect towards an officer on two separate occasions on 5 April 2011 and 8 April 2011, and disobeying an order of CPT T and LTC H on two separate occasions on 5 April 2011 and 8 April 2011.  The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $2,219 per month for two months (suspended).

	Negative counseling statements for failing to obey and follow a lawful order; losing her military bearing; becoming overtly hostile; and failing to report to her appointed place of duty at the prescribed time.

	General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 16 September 2010, for conduct unbecoming of an officer and being disrespectful.
	Three OERs as follows:
		A referred “Release from Active duty (REFRAD)” report covering the period of 12 December 2011 to 3 November 2012.  The applicant was rated as “Satisfactory Performance, Promote” and received a “Do Not Promote” from the senior rater.
		A referred “Change of Rater” report covering the period of 31 May 2010 to 11 February 2011.  The applicant was rated as “Outstanding Performance, Must Promote” and received a “Do Not Promote” from the senior rater.
		A “Change of Rater” report covering the period of 18 December 2009 to 20 May 2010.  The applicant was rated as “Satisfactory Performance, Promote” and received a “Fully Qualified” from the senior rater.
  
	i.	Lost Time:  None
  
	j.	Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health:  None

5.	APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE:  A self-authored statement; counseling statement, dated 29 July 2010; DD Form 214 for service under current review; extract copy of a professional reading list; e-mail correspondence, dated 28 March 2011; duty appointment memorandum, dated 29 July 2010; GOMOR, dated 16 September 2010, and its filing decision; e-mail correspondence, dated 
13 October 2010; memorandum, dated 27 August 2010, subject: Letter of Concern; e-mail correspondence, dated 17 May 2014; memorandum, dated 14 April 2011, subject: Request for Removal; memorandum, dated 19 April 2011, subject: Request for Reassignment and Removal of GOMOR from OMPF; transmittal record, dated 14 April 2011; law school admission test, dated 27 February 2009; three-e-mail correspondence, dated 24 May 2011, 1 April 2011, and 31 March 2011; two memoranda, dated 5 April 2011 and 11 April 2011, subject: Request for Redress under Article 138, UCMJ (AR 27-10); character reference statement, dated 13 July 2011; OER with an end date of 11 February 2011, and referral memorandum; incident report, dated 8 April 2011; newspaper article, dated 18 May 2011; express mail postal receipt; a state health and human services commission cover letter; certificate of death, dated 8 May 2012; housing and urban development veterans affairs supported housing handbook cover page; commission/appointment, dated 3 April 2077 with oath of office, dated 13 April 2007; discharge orders, dated 18 April 2007; promotion orders, dated 21 December 2009 and announcement orders, dated 18 June 2010; DA Form 1059, dated 18 December 2009; OBLC diploma, dated 18 December 2009; AMEDD Regiment certificate; certificate of course completion; three assumption of command memoranda, dated 
19 November 2010, 12 January 2011, and 23 May 2011; applicant’s photograph; and DVD-R disk.  

6.	POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS:  The applicant states, in effect, she is enrolled in law school and will be graduating in October 2015.

7.	REGULATORY CITATION(S):  Army Regulation 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.  A discharge of honorable, or general, under honorable conditions or under other than honorable conditions characterization of service may be granted.
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.  

8.	DISCUSSION OF ISSUE(S):  The applicant requests to upgrade the characterization of her discharge from general, under honorable conditions to an honorable discharge and to change the narrative reason for her discharge.    

The applicant’s request for an upgrade of her discharge characterization of service was carefully considered.  The record confirms the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of her 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 the documentary evidence that established the unacceptable conduct, the applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting an honorable discharge.  

The applicant provided no corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or sufficient evidence that her 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.  

The applicant seeks relief contending her discharge was inequitable and improper because it was a retaliatory action for a protected report of misconduct that was not consistent with the traditions of the Army.  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 her issues.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that she may have been unjustly discriminated.  The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or sufficient evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge or to change the narrative reason for her discharge.  

The applicant also requests a change to the narrative reason for her discharge.  However, Army Regulation 635-5-1 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, paragraph 4-2b, for unacceptable conduct.  The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized.

The applicant contends she struggled as a single parent and became homeless.  However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities, or to obtain veterans’ benefits.  Further, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.  All veterans at risk for homelessness or attempting to exit homelessness can request immediate assistance by calling the National Call Center for Homeless Veterans hotline at 1-877-424-3838 for free and confidential assistance.

The applicant’s post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on 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.  

In view of the above, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process.  

9.	BOARD ACTION DIRECTED:

	a.	Issue a new DD-214:  			Yes

	b.	Change Characterization to:  		Honorable

	c.	Change Reason to:  				No Change

	d.	Change SPD/RE Code to:  			No Change

	e.	Restore (Restoration of) Grade to:  	NA


Authenticating Official:




COL, US ARMY
Presiding Officer 
Army Discharge Review Board











Legend:
AWOL - Absent Without Leave	GD - General Discharge	NIF - Not in File	SPCM - Special Court Martial 
BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge	HS - High School		OAD - Ordered to Active Duty	SPD - Separation Program Designator
CG - Company Grade Article 15	HD - Honorable Discharge	OMPF - Official Military Personnel File	TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury
CID - Criminal Investigation Division	MP – Military Police	PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder	UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge  
ELS – Entry Level Status	IADT – Initial Active Duty Training	RE - Reentry	UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
FG - Field Grade Article 15	NA - Not applicable	SCM - Summary Court Martial	
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

AR20140009012


1