1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 July 2016 b. Date Received: 1 August 2016 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant, through counsel, requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge is unjust because it was based on an error of law in support of his discharge, it was claimed that his driving on a suspended license was in violation of California law. This conclusion by his superiors was in error. First, the infraction did not occur in California, and thus was not a violation of California vehicle codes. Moreover, had the incident occurred in California, it still would not have been a violation of California law because the applicant did not possess the requisite knowledge that his license was suspended. The applicant's general discharge was inequitable because it was based on a simple miscommunication with the California Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV). The applicant's mistake was caused by his unfamiliarity with the full bureaucratic process required to complete the paperwork for reinstating his license while serving in the military out of state. He had completed all of the substantive steps required to reinstate his license years before, which is what led to the confusion with the DMV. The applicant's only mistake was failing to fill out a final form confirming to the DMV that he had completed all of the other steps. The applicant's discharge was inequitable because the quality of his service to the Army during his over seven years of service was generally superb, marred only by this driving issue that arose out of a one time lapse in judgment, and another personal issue that arose out of a three year pending divorce and custody battle with his wife. The personal issue from the divorce was driven entirely by accusations made by his separated wife, who later admitted that all of her accusations were false and made purely out of frustration and emotional stress brought on by the divorce proceedings. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 4 October 2017, 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 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2B and 4-24A (1)/ BNC / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 24 April 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 6 August 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2(a)(1) and (3) because of substandard performance of duty, as well as paragraphs 4-2(b) (5) and (8) because of personal misconduct. The applicant as a married man created the perception that he was involved in an inappropriate relationship with another officer in his unit, which was revealed during an investigation pursuant to Army Regulation 15-6. This led to a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand. The applicant was driving with a suspended driver's license on 2 July 2013. This led to a second General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand. Conduct unbecoming of an officer as indicated by the above mentioned misconduct. On 25 January 2013, he received an administrative reprimand from Colonel W for failing to maintain accountability of four sets of night vision goggles. On 9 November 2012, he received an administrative reprimand from Colonel W for inadequate Troop physical security procedures that contributed to the loss of an M9 pistol in [his] command. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) GCMCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 3 October 2013, the GCMCA recommended approval of the applicant's request for Resignation in Lieu of Elimination / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (6) DA Ad Hoc Review Board: On 2 April 2014, the AD Hoc review board considered the applicant's request for resignation in lieu of elimination in accordance with AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4. On 7 April 2014, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) accepted the applicant's resignation and directed his discharge with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 24 June 2006 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment / Education / GT Score: 22 / Bachelor's Degree / NA c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-3 / 11A 5R 2B Infantry / 7 years, 10 months, 1 day d. Prior Service / Characterizations: CDT, 24 June 2006 - 27 September 2006 / NIF e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (6 November 2011 - 14 March 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM-3, AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: 24 June 2006 - 12 May 2008 / Best Qualified 10 May 2008 - 9 May 2009 / Best Qualified 10 May 2009 - 9 May 2010 / Best Qualified 19 November 2011 - 8 June 2012 / Best Qualified 9 June 2012 - 29 April 2013 / Unsatisfactory Performance, Do Not Promote 30 April 2013 - 30 October 2013 / Fully Qualified 31 October 2013 - 24 April 2014 / Highly Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Administrative Reprimand, dated 25 January 2013, for inadequate Command Supply Discipline procedures that contributed to the loss of three PEQ-15s and one PSQ-20 in his command. During his 16 July 2012, change of command inventories, he noted no missing items. He relied on a DA 2062 hand receipt for the items in question signed by a Soldier from the 710th Brigade Support Battalion. This 17 July 2011, hand receipt states, "supposed to be coded out," yet he did ascertain why the items remained on his property book exactly one year later. His failure to physically inspect the items, or to require SPC L to produce verifiable turn-in documents, violates his* duties in accordance with DA Pamphlet 710-2-1, paras. 9-3(a)(1)(d) and 9-3(b)(2). He only inquired further, once he discovered a weapon to be missing in his command several weeks later, and then discovered that he could not account for these items. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 2 April 2013, for creating the perception that he was involved in an inappropriate relationship with another officer in his unit, which was revealed during an investigation pursuant to Army Regulation 15-6. Further, he was a married man. NLETS Driver's License Detail, dated 2 July 2013, reflects the applicant's driver's license had been suspended or revoked. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 6 August 2013, for driving an automobile with a suspended license. This conduct is in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, and California Vehicle Code. On 2 July 2013, he was driving his vehicle and attempted to enter the installation at an Access Control Point. A scan of his driver's license revealed that his California driver's license had been suspended since 7 November 2011. Administrative Reprimand, dated 9 November 2013, for inadequate Troop physical security procedures that contributed to the loss of a M9 pistol in his Command. He did not take adequate measures upon assuming command in accordance with Army Regulation 190-11 and 190-13 to ensure his organization had proper physical security training and procedures. In particular, he did not take adequate measures with respect to arms room access control and physical security officer training. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with all allied documents listed in block 8 of the application. 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, through counsel, requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. 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. 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, such that he should have been retained. Further, the applicant's record contains no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant through counsel contends the offenses that caused his discharge were minor in nature and were a simple miscommunication. However, 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 through counsel contends his discharge is unjust because it was based on an error of law in support of his discharge, it was claimed that his driving on a suspended license was in violation of California law. However, 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 his overall service record. The applicant through counsel contends that he had good service which included a combat tour. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended for his accomplishments. 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 records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 4 October 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 AR20160013864 1