BOARD DATE: 14 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150010747 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x_____ __x______ ___x__ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 14 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150010747 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. ___________x______________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. BOARD DATE: 14 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150010747 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests a change of her narrative reason for separation. 2. The applicant states, in effect: a. After completing her service obligation she received a general discharge (GD). She requested and was granted an upgrade of her discharge to fully honorable. b. After receiving the upgrade, she wanted to put the disappointment and horrific feelings she endured based on the negative treatment by her command behind her. However, she still faces the stigma of “unacceptable conduct” as reflected on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). c. The entire decision was a result of personal feelings and malicious intent. Based on the unjust nature of the discharge, she requests the narrative reason for discharge be changed to grant her the credit she rightfully earned. d. During her 3-year service obligation she trained and was deployed to Iraq. After returning from Iraq, she was confronted with issues solely based on personal feelings, followed by malicious actions to end her career. e. She went from being a noncommissioned officer to a commissioned officer. As a Military Intelligence officer she lacked mentorship and guidance. The lack of good leadership, mentorship, and guidance deprived her of the opportunity to learn and grow. This ultimately ended her career before it got started. 3. The applicant provides a copy of her DD Form 214. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. After having prior enlisted service in the Regular Army, the applicant was appointed as a Reserve Commissioned officer of the United States Army and entered the Regular Army on 6 June 2005. 3. She was discharged on 8 June 2008. The complete facts and circumstances of her discharge are not available for review; however, the DD Form 214 she was issued at the time shows in: * Item 24 (Character of Service), Under Honorable Conditions (General) * Item 25 (Separation Authority ), Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfer and Discharges), paragraph 4-2b * Item 26 (Separation Code), "JNC" * Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation), "Unacceptable Conduct" 4. On 8 June 2008, she submitted a request to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) that her discharge be upgraded. On 11 May 2009, the ADRB determined that her characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result was inequitable. It was determined that the overall length and quality of her service, to include her combat service, mitigated the discrediting entries in her service record. Accordingly, the ADRB voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of her characterization of service to fully honorable. However, the Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable. As a result, her original DD Form 214 was voided and she was issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate and a replacement DD Form 214 that was revised to show in: * Item 18 (Remarks), Characterization of service upgraded on 11 May 2009 following application dated 8 June 2008 * Item 24, Honorable REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), provides the objective of a discharge review is to examine the propriety and equity of the applicant's discharge and to effect changes, if necessary. The standards of review and the underlying factors that aid in determining whether the standards are met shall be historically consistent with criteria for determining honorable service. The ADRB is empowered with the authority to modify characterizations of service, separation authorities, separation program designator (SPD) codes, reenlistment eligibility (RE) codes, and narrative reasons for separation. 2. Army Regulation 600-8-24, chapter 4, establishes policy and prescribes procedures for eliminating officers in the Active Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interests of national security. It states, in pertinent part, that an officer identified for elimination may at any time during or prior to the final action in the elimination case, elect to submit a resignation in lieu of elimination. 3. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives) and reasons for the separation of members from active military service and the SPD codes to be used for these stated reasons. The SPD code "JNC" applies to individuals discharged for unacceptable conduct. DISCUSSION: 1. The evidence shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b, for unacceptable conduct and was assigned the appropriate SPD code of "JNC." 2. She petitioned the ADRB asking that her discharge be upgraded. The ADRB determined her discharge was improper and voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of her characterization of service to fully honorable; however, the Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable. 3. There is no evidence or indication that there was an error or injustice that resulted in the applicant being discharged for unacceptable conduct. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must satisfactorily show or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear that the record is in error or unjust. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150010747 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150010747 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2