1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 18 March 2016 b. Date Received: 22 March 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one grave mistake during 35 months of honorable and productive service. Despite strong support from colleagues on staff urging his chain of command to see the dutiful and resourceful work he was doing, they continued to display a negative perception of his work ethic and potential. He desires to receive VA benefits to attend school. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 12 July 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 608-8-24, Paragraphs 4-2b / JNC / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 13 May 2014 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 23 December 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was required to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2b(5) and 8 and paragraph 4-2c(5) due to his personal act of misconduct. He was notified of the following reasons for elimination; On 28 October 2013, he was issued a General Officer Article 15 (GO Article 15) for failure to be at his appointed place of duty and failure to obey a lawful order. Specifically, he failed to report to the 15th Brigade Support Battalion, on several occasions between (14 August 2013 to 4 October 2013); and; he failed to obey a lawful order given by 1LT A.R., his acting commander, to report to her at 0600 for counseling. The GO Article 15 was filed in his Official Military Personnel File. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 6 February 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board/BOI: The applicant was a probationary officer and therefore not entitled to a Board of Inquiry (BOI). (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: On 23 April 2014, The Department of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board reviewed the request for discharge in lieu of elimination tendered by the applicant. This elimination was based on both misconduct and moral or professional dereliction (Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b) and derogatory information (Army 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2c). The Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards), approved the applicant's request and directed his discharge from the US Army with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 10 May 2012 / 3 years / OAD b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 25 years / College Graduate / NA c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-1 / 92A, Quartermaster General / 2 years, 11 months, 4 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 6 June 2011 to 9 May 2012 / HD Appointed 2LT / RA, 10 May 2012 e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: 1 November 2012 to 22 April 2013, Best Qualified 22 April 2013 to 16 January 2014, Do Not Promote h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: An administrative General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 7 October 2013, for driving a motorcycle while intoxicated. GO Article 15, dated 13 November 2013, for without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x5 (4 October 2013, 12 September 2013, 22 August 2013, 14 August 2013 and 15 August 2013); and having knowledge of a lawful order issued by 1LT A.R., to report at 0600 for a counseling with the acting commander, an order which it was his duty to obey, did fail to obey the same (13 September 2013); forfeiture of $1,497 for two months (suspended) and a written reprimand. The applicant received several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); request for honorable characterization of service; Officer Evaluation Report; Academic Evaluation Report; statement in response to Administrative Reprimand for 2LT Brunner; letter of support (MAJ S.); letter of endorsement for 2LT B. (CPT F.), letter of support (CPT M.); letter of support (CPT L.); petition to upgrade N.B.'s discharge to honorable; and a letter of support (R.C. III). 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 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. A discharge of honorable, general, or under other than honorable conditions characterization of service may be granted. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. 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. The applicant' unacceptable conduct diminished the quality of his service below meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. The applicant seeks relief contending, his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one grave mistake during 35 months of honorable and productive service. The service record indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of officers in the Army. The applicant's numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant further contends, despite strong support from colleagues on staff urging his chain of command to see the dutiful and resourceful work he was doing, they continued to display a negative perception of his work ethic and potential. 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 applicant desires to receive VA benefits to attend school. Eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. However, some the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a record review hearing conducted at Arlington, Virginia 12 July 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Issue a New Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change f. Restore (Restoration of) Grade to: No Change AUTHENTICATING OFFICIAL: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NCO - Noncommissioned Officer SCM - Summary Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial BH - Behavioral Health HD - Honorable Discharge NOS - Not Otherwise Specified SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OAD - Ordered to Active Duty TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP - Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS - Entry Level Status MST - Military Sexual Trauma PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable RE - Reentry VA - Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20160006515 1