IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	23 February 2015

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20140021018
___________________________________________________________________________

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 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, that his discharge was based on a single incident of misconduct during 11 years of Active Duty.  He contends the claims made against him by his ex-wife of abuse were use as the basis of the characterization of his discharge which were not creditable and unsubstantiated.  He states he agrees with his unit that he used poor judgment in matters regarding education documents; however, he believes his past family issues were the contributing factors to his poor judgment.  He takes full responsibility for his action in that regard.  However, this was the only misconduct in the eleven years of his active duty in which he was engaged.  He believes a letter of reprimand would have sufficed.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		16 December 2014
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			14 November 2005
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Unacceptable Conduct, AR 600-8-24, 									paragraph 4-2b and 4-24a(1), BNC, NA
e. Unit of assignment:			USA SPEC MOT ELE DET 1, Fort Meade, MD
f. Current Entry Date/Term:		16 December 1999, NIF
g. Current Term Net Active Service:	5 years, 10 months, 29 days
h. Total Service:			11 years, 4 months, 18 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		USAR-940627-941004/NA											RA-941005-980830/HD											RA-980831-991215/HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		O-3
l. Branch:				35D, All Source Intelligence
m. GT Score:				NA
n. Education:				NIF
o. Overseas Service:			Germany
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		ARCOM-2, AAM-4, AGCM, NDSM-2, AFEM, NPDR, 							GWOTSM, RNGR, ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		Yes
t. Counseling Statements:		None
u. Prior Board Review:			No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:

The applicant enlisted in the United States Army Reserve 27 June 1994 in the Delayed Entry/Enlistment Program (DEP).  On 5 October 1994, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years and 23 weeks.  On 31 August 1998, he reenlisted for a period of 4 years.  On or about 15 December 1999, he was discharged from active duty.  On 16 December 1999, he was ordered to active duty in the grade of rank of 2LT for an unknown period of time.  His record indicates he served in Germany; achieved the rank of CPT/O-3; and earned several awards to include two ARCOMs, four AAMs, and the AGCM.  He completed 11 years,              4 months, and 18 days of total military service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence of record shows on 8 July 2005, the applicant was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-18, AR 600-8-24, by reason of misconduct for his intentional misstatement of facts in an official statement or record for purposes of misrepresentation.

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

      a. for creating several fraudulent educational documents bearing the name of Makerere University in Uganda, although he never actually attended Makerere University, the documents that he knowingly and unlawfully drafted indicated that he received approximately 123 credit hours and was awarded a Bachelor of Arts degree from Makerere University.  Moreover, he wrongfully submitted these same fraudulent documents as part of an application packet to gain an appointment into Officer Candidate School, which resulted in his commissioning as a Second Lieutenant in the US Army, and
      
      b. after having obtained a commission through submission of fraudulent documents, he knowingly received pay commensurate with commissioned rank.

3.  On 15 July 2005, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily tendered his resignation from the Army in writing, under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 600-8-24, in lieu of further elimination proceedings.  The applicant indicated he understood he could receive an HD or a GD as determined by HQDA.  He elected to waive his right to submit any matters in explanation, rebuttal, or defense concerning the allegations in his case.

4.  Based on the above offenses, the Commanding General (CG), Headquarters, United States Army, Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, NC, indicated he was recommending the applicant’s discharge from the Army with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.




5.  On 11 October 2005, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) accepted the applicant's resignation, and directed his discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.   

6.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 14 November 2005, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions, under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b, 4-24a(1), for unacceptable conduct.

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

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Service School Academic Evaluation Report, dated 9 February 2005, MI Captains Career Course 05-002, showing the applicant failed to achieve course standards due to suspension of his security clearance.

2.  Memorandum for Record, dated 10 February 2005, showing the applicant was relieved from the Military Intelligence Captains Career Course (MICCC), 05-002.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, family advocacy group report; police reports; documents relating to his ex-wife; post-service accomplishments, and a copy of his DD Form 214 for the period of service under review. 

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant states, in effect, that since his discharge he has received a degree, a diploma, and several IT certifications; to include the Red Hat Certified System Administrator, and Red Hat Certified Engineer.  He wrote a white paper:  “Strategic Approach to Securing Development” (unpublished).

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.

4.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is an administrative separation from the service under conditions other than honorable.  An officer will normally receive an under other than honorable conditions when they resign for the good of the service, are dropped from the rolls of the Army, are involuntarily separated due to misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or for the final revocation of a security clearance as a result of an act or acts of misconduct.

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 issue 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 him knowingly and unlawfully creating several fraudulent educational documents; which resulted in him gaining an appointment into Officer Candidate School, and later his commissioning as a Second Lieutenant, 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 the result of claims made against him by his ex-wife of abuse which was not creditable and unsubstantiated. 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 his discharge was based on information relating to his ex-wife.  In fact, the applicant’s incidents of misconduct justify reason for discharge.  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.   
5.  The applicant contends his discharge was based on a single incident.  Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization.  The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  

6.  The applicant contends that since leaving the Army he has received a degree, a diploma, and several IT certifications; to include the Red Hat Certified System Administrator, and Red Hat Certified Engineer.  He wrote a white paper:  “Strategic Approach to Securing Development” (unpublished) and several other accomplishments.  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, these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  

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

8.  Therefore, the reason for discharge and characterization of service being both proper and equitable, the analyst recommends the Board deny relief.



SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing:  Personal Appearance	  Date:  23 February 2015   Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes 

Counsel:  Yes

Witnesses/Observers: None 

DOCUMENTS/TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE:

1.  The applicant submitted the following additional documents:

	a.  Updated Table of Contents (1 page)
	
      b.  Updated discharge upgrade letter (5 pages)

2.  The applicant presented no additional contentions.

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:   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:		No Change
Change RE Code to:			No Change
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)		AR20140021018



Page 7 of 7 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1