IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 May 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140008313 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 narrative reason for 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 his narrative reason for separation. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he is unable to obtain employment due to his reason for discharge. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 13 May 201 b. Discharge Received: Honorable c. Date of Discharge: 10 December 2012 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Unacceptable Conduct, AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b, JNC, NA e. Unit of assignment: B Co, 2-60th Infantry Regiment, Fort Jackson, SC f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 30 April 2007/OAD, 7 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 5 years, 7 months, 12 days h. Total Service: 9 years, 3 months, 13 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: USAR Cadet (030828-070428)/NA Oath of Office (070429)/NA k. Highest Grade Achieved: O-3 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 35D, All Source Intelligence m. GT Score: NA n. Education: College Graduate o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR r. Administrative Separation Board: Yes/BOI s. Performance Ratings: Yes t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant was appointed as a Reserve Commissioned Officer in the grade of 2LT on 29 April 2007. He was ordered to active duty on 30 April 2007, for a period of 7 years and he was 21 years old at the time. He was serving at Fort Huachuca, AZ when his separation action was initiated. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence of record shows on 9 February 2012, 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 based on the following offenses: a. Substantiated derogatory activity resulting in an Article 15 dated 10 February 2011 and a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) dated 16 February 2011; both were filed in his OMPF, and b. Conduct unbecoming an officer as indicated by the above-referenced items. 3. The applicant was advised he could submit a sworn or unsworn statement, a rebuttal statement, request for resignation in lieu of elimination or request appearance before a BOI. 4. The applicant’s documentation requesting appearance before a BOI is not contained in the available record and government regularity is presumed in the discharge process. On 9 April 2012, the Commander, DA, US Army Intelligence Center of Excellence, Fort Huachuca, AZ, referred the applicant’s case to the standing BOI. 5. The applicant was notified to appear before a BOI and advised of his rights. On 31 July 2012, the board convened and the applicant appeared with counsel. The Board recommended the applicant be eliminated from the US Army with an honorable discharge. 6. The Commander, DA, US Army Intelligence Center of Excellence, Fort Huachuca, AZ, after careful consideration of the findings and recommendations of the BOI, he recommended the applicant be discharged from the Army under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, AR 600-8-24, with an honorable characterization of service. 7. On 13 November 2012, the DA Board of Review for Eliminations recommended the applicant’s elimination from the Army with an honorable characterization of service. 8. On 20 November 2012, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Army Board of Review and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of honorable. 9. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 10 December 2012, with a characterization of service of honorable, under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, AR 600-8-24, for unacceptable conduct. 10. The applicant’s service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. A FG Article 15, dated 10 February 2011, for without authority failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (110207); and behaving with disrespect toward CPT K, his superior commissioned officer, by continuously hanging up the phone on him (110207); the punishment consisted of restriction to the Columbia area not to exceed 15 miles for 30 days and a written reprimand. 2. The record contains a punitive General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 8 August 2011 for failing to report and being disrespectful. 3. The applicant received three successful OERs covering the periods from 23 April 2010 through 30 November 2012. 4. The record also contains a negative counseling statement dated 8 February 2011 for failing to report, dereliction of duty, disrespecting his commanding officer, disobeying a direct order and conduct unbecoming an officer. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 149 dated 7 August 2012, self-authored statement with 93 pages, DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report), and a DD Form 214 for the period of service under review. 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. 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. 4. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of JNC, and a reentry eligibility (RE) code of NA. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request for a change to the narrative reason for his separation was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, his military records, the documents and issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit a change to his narrative reason for separation. 2. The applicant requested a change to the narrative reason for his 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, for unacceptable conduct. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. 3. The applicant contends he is unable to obtain employment due to his reason for discharge. The Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 4. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 5. 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: 15 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) AR20140008313 Page 2 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1