IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 6 February 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140003705 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, 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 a change to the narrative reason for his discharge. 2. The applicant states, in effect, his narrative reason for discharge is inaccurate and requests it be changed to reflect the characterization of his faithful service to the Army. He states, he received a letter of reprimand in 2011 but contends that was not the reason for his separation. He contends, he submitted an unqualified resignation in February 2013 and one month after submitting his resignation he was notified of possible elimination proceedings against him. He contends his resignation was accepted and he was not eliminated from the Army and received an honorable discharge. He states, the narrative reason does not reflect his 10 years of exemplary service at Walter Reed. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 25 February 2014 b. Discharge Received: Honorable c. Date of Discharge: 22 November 2013 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: Bravo Company, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 13 June 2003/5 years (revised ADSO as of 080630 for 5 years) g. Current Enlistment Service: 5 years, 4 months, 23 days h. Total Service: 20 years, 21 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: DEP, 931102-940208, NA RA, 940209-980208, HD USAR, 990429-030612, NA k. Highest Grade Achieved: O-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 60N, Anesthesiologist m. GT Score: NA n. Education: Medical Degree o. Overseas Service: SWA p. Combat Service: Iraq (090522-091121) q. Decorations/Awards: MSM-2, ARCOM-3, AAM-3, ASUA, AGCM, NDSM-2, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, NOPDR, ASR, OSR, EFMB r. Administrative Separation Board: Yes s. Performance Ratings: Yes t. Counseling Statements: None u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 February 1994, for a period of 4 years and received an honorable discharge. He was commissioned as a second lieutenant on 29 April 1999 in the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC). He was 28 years old at the time and a college graduate. The applicant’s record shows he served in Iraq and earned two MSMs, three ARCOMs and three AAMs. He was ordered to active duty on 13 June 2003, for a period of 5 years and his ADSO was revised as of 30 June 2008 for five years for his school attendance. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving in Washington, DC. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence of record shows that on 3 April 2013, the applicant was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, AR 600-8-24, by reason of misconduct, moral or professional dereliction. 2. The applicant was directed to show cause for retention in the Army after substantiated derogatory information resulting in a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 2 February 2011, was filed in his official military record. He was advised that he could submit a voluntary resignation in lieu of elimination or submit a rebuttal and request an appearance before a Board of Inquiry. 3. On 3 April 2013, the applicant elected to submit a letter of resignation. The applicant provided a rebuttal statement, dated 31 May 2013, regarding the submission of his unqualified resignation and his ADSO expiration on 30 June 2013. 4. On 4 September 2013, the applicant submitted his resignation in lieu of elimination proceedings. The applicant’s unit and intermediate commanders recommended approval of the applicants request and that he receive an honorable discharge. The Commander, Headquarters, Northern Regional Medical Command, Fort Belvoir, Virginia recommended approval of the applicant’s resignation in lieu of elimination and that he receive a characterization of service as general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 10 September 2013, the Commander, US Army Military District of Washington, Fort McNair, DC, recommended approval of the applicant’s resignation in lieu of elimination. 5. The DA Ad Hoc Review Board recommended the applicant’s resignation in lieu of elimination be accepted with issuance of an honorable discharge. 6. The Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board and directed the applicant be separated with an honorable discharge. 7. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 22 November 2013, under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b and 4-24a(1), a SPD code of BNC, and a characterization of service of honorable. 8. The applicant’s service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. DASA, Army Review Boards memorandum, undated, accepts the resignation of the applicant and separated him from the Army with an honorable discharge. 2. HQDA message, dated 7 November 2013, discharge instructions. 3. Applicant’s resignation in lieu of elimination request, dated 4 September 2013. 4. GOMOR, dated 2 February 2011, for engaging in an inappropriate relationship. 5. Eleven OERS, covering the period of 1 July 2003 until 17 November 2012. The applicant was rated with “Outstanding Performance/Must Promote” by his raters. He received three “Best Qualified/Above Center of Mass” ratings, six “Best Qualified/No Box Check” ratings, and two “Best Qualified/Center of Mass” ratings from his senior raters. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided an online application, dated 23 February 2014, a DD Form 214, a request for unqualified resignation, dated 25 February 2013, four OERs, and four letters of support. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant did not provide any in support of his application. 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. 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. It identifies the SPD code of "BNC" as the appropriate code to assign officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b and 4-24a(1), for unacceptable conduct. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request for an change to the narrative reason 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 a change to the narrative reason for the discharge. 2. The record confirms that 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 his misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career that ultimately caused his discharge from the Army. 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 that a change in the reason for the discharge would reflect the characterization of his faithful service to the Army. However, 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. It identifies the SPD code of "BNC" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b and 4-24a(1), for unacceptable conduct. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. 4. The applicant contends he submitted his unqualified resignation which was ultimately approved. However, the evidence of record does not support that the applicant’s request for unqualified resignation was approved prior to his notification of elimination proceedings. Further, the applicant submitted a request on 4 September 2013, for resignation in lieu of elimination which was approved by the Deputy Assistant to the Secretary (Army Review Boards). 5. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 6. Therefore, the discharge being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 6 February 2015 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? NA Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA 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: NA Change RE Code to: NA 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) AR20140003705 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1