IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 20 March 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140005594 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 his general, under honorable conditions discharge characterization be upgraded to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. 2. The applicant states, in effect, his discharge should be changed to an honorable discharge due to unfair and unproven accusations against him. He served honorably; he fraternized with an enlisted Soldier, but he was not responsible for what happened on the night the Soldier was killed. He was a victim of circumstances and deserves an opportunity to continue serving his country. He was a junior officer, there was no review board and he didn't get a fair chance to defend himself. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 25 March 2013 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 4 June 2013 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Unacceptable Conduct, AR 600-8-24, Paragraph 4-2b, JNC, NA e. Unit of assignment: HHC, 40th Expeditionary Signal Battalion, 11th Signal Brigade (Rear) (Provisional), Fort Huachuca, AZ f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 10 June 2010, 6 years/block 12a on the DD Form 214 date entered active duty this period, is incorrect and should read as annotated in the CRD. g. Current Enlistment Service: 3 years, 28 days h. Total Service: 7 years, 9 months, 27 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: RA (020813-060202)/HD RA (060203-080707)/HD RA (080708-100506)/HD Oath of Office (100507-100609)/NA k. Highest Grade Achieved: O-2 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 25A, Signal, General m. GT Score: NA n. Education: Master’s Degree o. Overseas Service: Southwest Asia/Germany p. Combat Service: Iraq (030513-040422), Kuwait (060927-061231), both prior service q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM-4, AAM-2, AGCM-2, NDSM, ICM-W/CS GWOTEM, GWOTSM, NPDR-2, ASR, OSR-2, VUA r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: Yes t. Counseling Statements: No u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 August 2002, for a period of 3 years with a 9 month extension; he was 20 years old at the time and a HS Graduate. He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 14J30, Tactical Operations Center Enhancement Operator/Maintainer. His record also shows he served two combat tours, earned several awards including four ARCOMs, two AAMs, and two AGCMs; and he achieved the rank of SSG/E-6. He was discharged on 6 May 2010 with an honorable discharge to accept a commission in the Regular Army. He was commissioned in the Army as a 2LT on 7 May 2010, and he was 28 years old at the time. He was ordered to active duty on 10 June 2010 for a period of 6 years and was 28 years old. He was serving at Fort Huachuca, AZ, when his separation action was initiated. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence of record shows on 5 December 2012, the applicant was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b(5) and (8), 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 based on the following offenses: a. A series of substantiated derogatory activity resulting in a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 19 June 2012, filed in his OMPF, and b. Conduct unbecoming of an officer as indicated by the above-referenced item. 3. The applicant was advised he could submit a sworn or unsworn statement, a rebuttal statement, request for resignation in lieu of elimination, or apply for retirement in lieu of elimination. 4. On 6 January 2013, the applicant submitted a rebuttal statement under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 600-8-24, in lieu of further elimination proceedings. The applicant was a probationary officer and therefore not entitled to appear before a board of officers (Board of Inquiry). The applicant’s chain of command recommended he be eliminated from the service with an honorable characterization of service. 5. On 15 May 2013, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Army Board of Review and directed the applicant’s discharge with characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 6. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 4 June 2013, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions, under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, AR 600-8-24, for unacceptable conduct. 7. The applicant’s service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences, time lost or actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. The record contains an administrative GOMOR, dated 19 June 2012, for fraternizing with an enlisted Soldier. 2. The applicant received three successful OERs covering the periods from 7 May 2010 through 6 March 2013. 3. A Sierra Vista Police Department, Officer Report for Incident (131 pages), giving details of the accident in which a Soldier was killed. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided two online applications (nine pages), and a DD Form 214. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant did not submit any information with 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. 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. 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 "JNC" as the appropriate code to assign officer Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, for unacceptable conduct. 5. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned a SPD Code of JNC, and a reentry eligibility (RE) code of NA. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge and a change to the narrative reason for separation was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, his military records, the document and issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge or a change to the narrative reason for separation. 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 his misconduct, the applicant 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. 4. The applicant requested a change in the reason for the discharge. 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 "JNC" as the appropriate code to assign officer Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b(14), for unacceptable conduct. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. 5. The applicant contends his discharge should be changed to an honorable due to unfair and unproven accusations against him. 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 he was unjustly discharged. 6. The applicant further contends he served honorably; he fraternized with an enlisted Soldier, but he was not responsible for what happened on the night the Soldier was killed. On the night of 14 March 2012, the applicant accompanied the Soldier who was killed to a club in the same automobile, consumed alcohol with him at the club and left the club together after being ejected by management. The Soldier stopped his automobile to assist another motorist and was struck and killed on the roadside. A post-mortem test was administered and the Soldier had a blood alcohol content of .134 percent. 7. The applicant also contends he was a victim of circumstances and deserves an opportunity to continue serving his country. If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers if appropriate. 8. The applicant additionally contends he was a junior officer, there was no review board and he didn't get a fair chance to defend himself. AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-1 states, an officer is permitted to serve in the Army because of the special trust and confidence the President and the Nation have placed in the officer’s patriotism, valor, fidelity, and competence. An officer is expected to display responsibility commensurate to this special trust and confidence and to act with the highest integrity at all times. However, an officer who will not or cannot maintain those standards will be separated. 9. Further, AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-20, states an Regular Army Commissioned officer with fewer than 5 years of ACS (10 USC 630) is a probationary officer. Processing an officer’s recommendation for elimination under this paragraph does not require referral to a Board of Inquiry or Review unless the officer declines to elect one of the options listed and an other than honorable conditions discharge is recommended. 10. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 11. 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: Records Review Date: 20 March 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) AR20140005594 Page 7 of 7 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1