Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2011/03/01 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states: "The facts in the case presented previously were unfounded and the charges I have admitted to during were Article 15 issues only. I have had 25 years of service with no disciplinary issues." II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Tender Offer: NA See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Discharge Under Review Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: NIF Discharge Received: Date: 101124 Chapter: 3-13 AR: 600-8-24 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: DFS Unit/Location: HHC, 199th BSB Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 42 Current ENL Date: 090726/OAD Current ENL Term: NIF Years ????? Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 03 Mos, 29 Days ????? Total Service: 25 Yrs, 04 Mos, 00 Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA-850725-891211/HD USARCG-891212-900201/NA ARNG-900202-000708/HD ARNG-000709-040606/NA OAD-040607-051226/HD ARNG-051227-060104/NA OAD-060105-060315/HD ARNG-060316-080930/NA OAD-081001-090725/HD (Concurrent Service) Highest Grade: O3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 13A/Field Artillery GT: NA EDU: NIF Overseas: Southwest Asia Combat: Kuwait/Iraq (041112-051115) Decorations/Awards: BSM, MSM, AAM, AGCM, ARCAM-5, NDSM-2, SWASM-w/BS, GWOTSM, ICM-w/CS, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-2, CAB V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Andersonville, TN Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 22 July 10, the applicant was charged with on divers occasions of conspiring with a First Lieutenant and Sergeant First Class between (091001 and 100530) to commit an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) of larceny of Iraqi Dinar of a value of over $500.00; violating a lawful general order between (091225 and 100102) by wrongfully possessing and consuming alcohol; violating a lawful general order between (100507 and 100607) by wrongfully possessing pornography; divers occasions between (091101 and 100331) of violating a lawful regulation by maintaining an inappropriate relationship with Specialist B.K., divers occasions between (100101 and 100529) of violating a lawful regulation by maintaining an inappropriate relationship with Specialist A.N., divers occasions between (091225 and 100102) of violating a lawful regulation by maintaining an inappropriate relationship with Specialist D.G., derelict in the performance of his duties (100301 and 100525); being found drunk on duty (100320); engaging in sexual contact with Specialist D.H. by grabbing her hips from behind and pulling her into his crotch area between (100425 and 100502); engaging in sexual contact with Specialist D.H. by grabbing her buttocks between (090729 and 090909); on divers occasions between (091130 and 100530) wrongfully appropriating Field Ordering Officer funds of value more than $500.00 dollars, the property of the US Army; wrongfully grabbing the arm of Specialist D.H. between (100425 and 100502); wrongfully straddling a female in his office between (100101 and 100131); wrongfully endeavor to impede an Army Regulation 15-6 investigation by directing a First Lieutenant to remove and destroy a bottle of Jack Daniels and a water purifier between (100510 and 100527); wrongfully soliciting a Specialist D.G. to disobey a lawful general order between (091225 and 100102) by consuming alcohol; wrongfully soliciting a Specialist A.N. to disobey a lawful general order between (100101 and 100529) by consuming alcohol; and on divers occasions wrongfully having sexual intercourse with Specialist A.N. a woman not his wife between (100101 and 100529). On 6 October 2010, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily tendered his resignation from the Army in writing, under the provisions of Chapter 3, AR 600-8-24, for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by a general court-martial or a board of officers. The applicant indicated he understood that he could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veteran’s benefits. The chain of command recommended approval of the resignation for the good of the Service with issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 20 October 2010, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army regulation 600-8-24 prescribes the policies and procedures governing the transfer and discharge of Army officer personnel. Chapter 3, paragraph 3-13 outlines the rules for processing requests for resignation for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by a general court-martial. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records during the term of service under review and the issue and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was charged with the commission of offenses punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with a punitive discharge. The applicant voluntarily requested resignation in lieu of trial by general court-martial under the provisions of Chapter 3, AR 600-8-24. The appropriate authority approved the applicant's request and issuance of an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. The applicant contends that the facts in the case presented against him were unfounded and that he had 25 years of service with no disciplinary issues. The analyst noted the applicant's contentions; 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 his issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that the facts in his case were unfounded. Furthermore, the analyst acknowledges the applicant’s in-service accomplishments and considered the quality of his service during the initial portion of the period under review. However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge. Further, the analyst concluded that the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. Having examined all the circumstances, the analyst determined that the applicant’s numerous incidents of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant’s service below that meriting a fully honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge. In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both, proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 18 November 2011 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 149, Fax Cover Letter from the office of Senator [ redacted ], Document from the applicant's discharge packet to include award certificates, recommendations, and evaluation reports (70 pages), and DD Form 214 for the period of service under review. VIII. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the term of service under review and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. IX. Board Decision XI. Certification Signature Board Vote: Approval Authority: Character - Change 2 No change 3 Reason - Change 0 No change 5 (Board member names available upon request) EDGAR J. YANGER Colonel, U.S. Army X. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA Official: BONITA E. TROTMAN Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder Legend: AWOL Absent Without Leave GCM General Court Martial NA Not applicable SCM Summary Court Martial BCD Bad Conduct Discharge GD General Discharge NIF Not in the file SPCM Special Court Martial CG Company Grade Article 15 HD Honorable Discharge OAD Ordered to Active Duty UNC Uncharacterized Discharge DD Dishonorable Discharge HS High School Graduate OMPF Official Military Personnel File UOTH Under Other Than Honorable FG Field Grade Article 15 IADT Initial Active Duty Training RE Reentry Code Conditions ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20110004206 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 4 pages