IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	9 March 2015

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20150000441
___________________________________________________________________________

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 characterization of service was too harsh based on the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, and his post service accomplishments (i.e., earned project manager certificates and his work with habitat for humanity stateside; and in India and Egypt), and as a result it is now inequitable.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  The Board 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 his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he made a mathematical error in developing a scheme to balance funds DFAS had denied and felt he was entitled to.  He pursued a stupid scheme to account for $790 over the remaining 10 months of TDY and made the math error of one month in his calculation.  It is reasonable, equitable, and fair that the Deputy Assistant Secretary would logically have approved MG Ps recommendation.  It was his case and his decision should weigh supreme and honored.  There was no intent to defraud the government; he used the improper method that warranted pursuing the case.  It is not an illogical perception that the SMDC lawyers wanted the same outcomes for both of us, even if his case might have warranted an alternative disposition.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		29 December 2013
b. Discharge Received:		Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			8 October 2009
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, AR 600-8-24 							Chapter 3, paragraph 3-13, DFS, NA
e. Unit of assignment:			HHC, USASMDC/ARSTRAT, Peterson Air Force 						Base, Colorado Springs, CO
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	OAD/100123, 365 days
g. Current Enlistment Service:	3 months, 16 days
h. Total Service:			24 years, 8 month, 5 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		USAR Cadet (850904-890609)/NA								USAR (890610-901025)/NA									AD (901026-000331)/HD										USARCG (000401-030420)NA									AD (030421-050419)/HD										USAR (050420-050820/NA									AD (050821-070821)HD										USAR (070822-100122)/NA
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		O-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	21B, Combat Engineer
m. GT Score:				NA
n. Education:				MBA Degree
o. Overseas Service:			Germany and Hawaii (both prior periods of active 						duty)
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		MSM-3, ARCOM-2, AAM-2, NDSM-2, GWOTSM, 						AFRM-W/ “M” DEV, ASR, OSR-2, MOVSM, ASUA
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		None
t. Counseling Statements:		No
u. Prior Board Review:			Yes

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:

The applicant enlisted in the US Army Reserve (cadet) on 10 June 1989, for a period of 8 years.  He was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He was commissioned in the Army Reserve as a 2LT 21B, Combat Engineer on 10 June 1989, and he was 22 years old at the time and a college graduate.  He was ordered to active duty on 26 October 1990, released from active duty with an honorable discharge and assigned to USAR Control Group.  He was ordered to active duty on 21 April 2003, released from active duty with an honorable discharge and returned to his reserve unit.  He was ordered to active duty on 21 August 2005, released from active duty with an honorable discharge and returned to his reserve unit.  He was ordered to active duty on 23 January 2010.  His record further shows he earned several awards including three MSMs, two ARCOMs, two AAMs, and an AFRM-W/ “M” DEV; he achieved the rank of MAJ/O-4.  He was serving at Colorado Springs, CO, when his separation action was initiated.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458, Charge Sheet which indicates on 3 April 2009, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant alleging the following offenses:

     a.  stealing US currency in an amount greater than $500 on divers occasions from on or about 1 June 2004, and on or about 19 April 2005,

     b.  submitting false and fraudulent claims for payment of an amount greater than $500 on divers occasions from on or about 1 June 2004, and on or about 19 April 2005, to the U.S. Government, 

     c.  for the purpose of obtaining payment of a claim, knowingly making and using false and fraudulent papers on divers occasions from on or about 1 June 2004, and on or about 19 April 2005, and 

     d.  for the purpose of obtaining payment of a claim, knowingly making and using a false and fraudulent paper on or about 9 August 2004.

2.  On 7 August 2009, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily tendered a resignation for the good of the service in lieu of general court-martial (RFGOS) under the provisions of paragraph 3-13 of AR 600-8-24.  The applicant in his resignation indicated he understood he could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on his eligibility for Veteran’s benefits.


3.  The resignation was submitted pursuant to a Pretrial Agreement wherein the applicant agreed to submit a RFGOS and the MG, Commander Fort Carson (MG), acting as the General Court-Martial Convening Authority, agreed to recommend its acceptance and issuance of a general, under honorable conditions discharge to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army Review Boards (DASA) (RB).

4.  The Army Ad Hoc Review Board recommended the DASA (RB) accept the RFGOS with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 28 August 2009, the DASA (RB) approved the applicant’s RFGOS and directed his separation from the Army with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

The record did not contain any pertinent information for the period of service under review.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided an online application (eight pages), letter, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, JSRA Complaint # Y130422-02, Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), review of complaint (five pages), Amended Army Discharge Review Board-Case Report Directive (four pages), ADRB cover letter, an e-mail (four pages), an attorney’s brief from prior case (five pages), and a DD Form 214; Additional documents submitted, DD Form 457 continuation sheet (two pages), Article 32 transcript (two pages), offer to plead guilty memorandum (three pages), letter, regarding retirement salary, two character statements and an e-mail, habitat for humanity slides (three pages), Volunteers of America slide, wheelchair mission to India, prayer request and itinerary (three pages), Egypt Habitat trip (29 pages), resume (four pages), and two project manager certificates.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant provided several documents which show he earned project manger certificates and he worked with habitat for humanity stateside; and in India and Egypt.

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

1.  Army Regulation 635-100 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers from the active Army.  Chapter 3, Section XV establishes policy and procedures for involuntary relief from active duty.  Paragraph 3-58(g) provides that an officer who is found guilty, or action is taken tantamount to a finding of guilty, in a Federal or State court may be immediately released from active duty by the Secretary of the Army, when the offense is punishable under the UCMJ with confinement of 1 year or more, or when the offense involves moral turpitude, regardless of the sentence received or the maximum punishment under any code.  

2.  Army regulation 600-8-24 prescribes the policies and procedures governing the transfer and discharge of Army officers.  Chapter 3, paragraph 3-13 outlines the rules for processing requests for resignation for the good of the service in lieu of trial by a general court-martial.

3.  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.

2.  After examining the applicant’s record of service, his military records, the issues and documents submitted with the application, there are several mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge to general, under honorable conditions for the following reasons:

     a.  Overall length and quality of service:  The applicant served 3 months and 16 days of a one year period of being ordered to active duty.  The applicant served a total of 24 years, 8 month, and 5 days, thus the preponderance of his service was honorable.

     b.  The record confirms the applicant received several awards, specifically three MSMs, two ARCOMs, two AAMs and an AFRM-W/ “M” DEV.

     c.  Post service accomplishments (i.e., earned project manger certificates and his work with habitat for humanity in the states; and in India and Egypt.

3.  This recommendation is made after full consideration of all of the applicant’s faithful and honorable service, as well as the record of misconduct.  The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant’s characterization of service may now be too harsh, and as a result, inequitable. 

4.   In view of the foregoing, the characterization of service is now inequitable and the analyst recommends the Board grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  However, the reason for discharge was fully supported by the record and therefore, remains both proper and equitable.



SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing:  Personal Appearance    Date:  9 March 2015    Location:  Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify:  Yes

Counsel:  None

Witnesses/Observers:  None

DOCUMENTS/TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE:

The applicant submitted no additional documents, or 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:   5	No Change:  0
Reason Change:	 0	No Change:  5
(Board member names available upon request)

Board Action Directed:
Issue a new DD Form 214:  		Yes
Change Characterization to:  		General, Under Honorable Conditions
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)		AR20150000441



Page 2 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1