Application Receipt Date: 060912 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents submitted by the Applicant. II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Yes No Tender Offer: See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Original Character of Discharge Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 000627 Discharge Received: Date: 000828 Chapter: 3-13 AR: 600-8-24 Reason: In Lieu Of Trial By Court-Martial RE: SPD: DFS Unit/Location: HHC, 2-3 Aviation Regiment, Hunter Army Airfileld, GA Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 601219 Current ENL Date: 940304 Current ENL Term: NIF Years Current ENL Service: 06 Yrs, 05 Mos, 25 Days Total Service: 22 Yrs, 04 Mos, 02Days Previous Discharges: USAR-780428-790403/NA RA-790404-830403/HD USARCG-830404-870726/NA RA-870727-900206/HD RA-900207-920305/HD RA-920306-940303/HD Highest Grade: 03 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 65D Physician Assistant GT: NA EDU: BS Physician Assistant Overseas: Egypt/Germany Combat: None Decorations/Awards: MSM, ARCOM-2, AAM-3, AGCM-3, NDSM, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Atlanta, GA Current Address: 1516 Round Hill Road Oak Hill WV 25901 Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant submitted a document which indicates he is employed at the VA Medical Center in Beckley, WV. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that the applicant was charged on 26 January 2000, in that as a married officer, kiss on the lips a PFC, a patient under his care, a person not his wife, fondle her breasts, caress her leg and vagina through her clothing, orally communicate to the PFC he was sexually attracted to her and wanted to taste her tongue or words to that effect, which conduct was, under the circumstances, conduct unbecoming of an officer, (990510), commit indecent assault upon a SGT, a person not his wife, by touching her breasts and buttocks with the intent to gratify his sexual desires, and orally communicate to the SGT, certain indecent language, that there are things he could do without penetrating the said SGT or words to that effect, which conduct was, under the circumstances, conduct unbecoming of an officer, between on or about (980401 and 980430); wrongfully and unlawfully made under lawful oath a false written statement he did not fondle a PFC breasts or fondle her vagina or words to that effect, which conduct was, under the circumstances, conduct unbecoming of an officer, (990519). On 19 June 2000, the applicant voluntarily tendered his resignation in lieu of trial by a General Court Martial under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, Chapter 3-13. The applicant was advised of his rights and understood that if his resignation was accepted, he could receive any type of discharge as determined by Headquarters DA. On 30 June 2000, the Commander, U.S. Army 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, GA recommended approval of the applicant's resignation in lieu of trial by a General Court-Martial, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The Ad Hoc Review Board met. On 25 July 2000, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) accepted the applicant's resignation, approved the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board, and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army regulation 600-8-24 prescribes the policies and procedures governing the transfer and discharge of Army officer personnel. 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. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records during the term of service under review, the issues and documents he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge and recommends that relief be denied. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was charged with the commission of offenses punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with a punitive discharge. The applicant voluntarily requested resignation in lieu of trial by general court-martial under the provisions of Chapter 3, AR 600-8-24. The appropriate authority approved the applicant's request and issuance of a general, under than honorable conditions characterization of service. The analyst concluded that by his misconduct, the applicant diminished the overall quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The ananlyst noted the applicant's issues: however, even though the applicant claims that his offenses were isolated, the analyst concluded that the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct, expected of Soldiers in the Army. Having examined all the circumstances, the analyst determined that the applicant’s numerous incidents of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. Furthermore, the analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command, and was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Therefore, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service remains both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 12 December 2007 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: NA VIII. Board Decision The discharge was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The characterization of service was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The narrative reasons were: Equitable Inequitable DRB voting record: Change 1 No change 4 - Character Change 0 No change 5 - Reason (Board member names available upon request) IX. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable, and voted to deny relief. Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. Kenneth McFarley, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: None Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: None XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 13 December 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder