IN THE CASE OF: Ms. BOARD DATE: 6 May 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140006343 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 to change the narrative reason for her discharge. 2. The applicant states, in effect, she was discharged for being arrested for a DUI; however, her case was dismissed based on numerous errors in the police report, the breathalyzer had malfunctioned, and neither of the two police officers showed up in the five hearings held. In addition, both her immediate supervisor and senior rater recommended her retention, but her battalion and brigade commanders recommended her discharge—they knew nothing about her work ethics and based their recommendations on the erroneous police report. The narrative reason for her discharge is causing her an incredible hardship with finding employment. She served honorably for 12 years, including three deployments and spending over half of her time in service overseas and away from any family. The one incident deemed erroneous is keeping her from supporting herself. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 7 April 2014 b. Discharge Received: Honorable c. Date of Discharge: 30 September 2013 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Unacceptable Conduct, AR 600-8-24, Paragraph 4- 2b, JNC, NA e. Unit of assignment: HHC, 3rd Bde Special Trps Bn, 3rd BCT, 25th ID, Schofield Barracks, HI f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 10 August 2010, Indefinite g. Current Enlistment Service: 3 years, 1 month, 21 days h. Total Service: 12 years, 2 months, 7 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: RA (010724-050723) / HD IRR (050724-060214) / NA RA (060215-080210) / HD RA (080211-100809) / HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: WO2 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 351M0, Human Intelligence Collection Technician m. GT Score: 115 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Hawaii, SWA, Korea p. Combat Service: Iraq (040109-041214) and (090106-091226), Afghanistan (060525-070202) q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM-5; AAM-4; AGCM-3; NDSM; ACM-2CS; ICM-3CS; GWOTEM; GWOTSM; KDSM; NPDR-2; ASR; OSR-5; NATO MDL; MUC r. Administrative Separation Board: Yes s. Performance Ratings: Yes t. Counseling Statements: NIF u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The record shows the applicant with prior service, enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 February 2006, and was appointed as warrant officer on 10 August 2010. She was 22 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. She was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 351M0, Human Intelligence Collection Technician. She served in Hawaii, Iraq, and Korea. She earned five ARCOMs and four AAMs. She completed 12 years, 2 months, and 7 days of active duty service. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence of record shows that on 7 May 2013 (as acknowledged by the applicant), the applicant was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4, paragraphs 4-2b(5) and 4-2c(5), due to misconduct and derogatory information. 2. The applicant was directed to show cause for retention in the Army based on the following offenses: a. Acts of personal misconduct. b. Derogatory activity resulting in a GOMOR, dated 7 March 2013, filed in her OMPF. 3. On 7 May 2013, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and submitted matters in rebuttal to her elimination proceedings. 4. The company commander recommended retaining the applicant, and both the battalion and brigade commanders recommended approving the applicant’s elimination from the US Army with an honorable characterization of service. 5. On 6 August 2013, the CG, 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, HI, considered the applicant’s additional matters and recommended separation from the US Army, with an honorable characterization of service. 6. The Department of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board reviewed the probationary officer elimination on the applicant based on misconduct and moral or professional dereliction. 7. On 13 September 2013, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board and directed the applicant’s discharge with an honorable characterization of service. 8. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 30 September 2013, with an honorable characterization of service, under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b, for unacceptable conduct. 9. The applicant’s service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. There are no negative counseling statements or documented actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 2. A General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 7 March 2013, for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. 3. A civilian police report, dated 9 February 2013, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for operating a vehicle under the influence. 4. Two OERs covering the following periods: a. An “Annual” report for the period 6 November 2011 through 5 November 2012. The applicant was evaluated as “Outstanding Performance, Must Promote” and the senior rater provided a “Best Qualified” rating. b. An “Annual” report for the period 6 November 2010 through 5 November 2011. The applicant was evaluated as “Outstanding Performance, Must Promote” and the senior rater provided a “Best Qualified” rating. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided DD Form 214 for service under current review. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant provided none. 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. 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 to change the narrative reason for her discharge was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, and the document and issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit a change to the narrative reason for her discharge. 2. The record confirms that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of her 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. The applicant by violating the Army's policy not to abuse alcohol, compromised the special trust and confidence placed in a commissioned officer. The applicant, as a commissioned officer, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's alcohol abuse policies. 3. The applicant provided no corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that her 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 her DUI case was dismissed and the recommendations for her separation were based on erroneous police report. However, 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 her issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that she may have been unjustly discriminated. In fact, the applicant’s GOMOR justify a serious incident of misconduct. There is no evidence showing she was exonerated of her DUI offense. The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request to change the narrative reason for her discharge. 5. The applicant contends the one incident deemed erroneous keeps her from supporting herself. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of her service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. 6. The applicant contends she served honorably for 12 years, including three deployments and spending majority of her time in service overseas and away from her family. Her service accomplishments and the quality of her service prior to the incident that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant a change to the narrative reason for her discharge. 7. The applicant was separated under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b, with an honorable discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Unacceptable Conduct," and the separation code is "JNC." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. 8. The applicant contends the reason for her discharge is keeping her from finding employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 9. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with her overall service record. Accordingly, the records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 10. Therefore, the reason for 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 May 2015 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? NA Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Board Vote: Character Change: NA No Change: NA 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: NA 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) AR20140006343 Page 7 of 7 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1