IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 1 March 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150008974 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests correction of her military records to show she was discharged with an honorable characterization of service. She further requests a change in the reason for her discharge from in lieu of trial by court-martial. 2. The applicant states she served 17 and 1/3 years in the United States Army. Her assigned lawyer at the time of the accusations advised her to request a discharge in lieu of court-martial to preclude losing her nursing license. Her counsel sent letters requesting extensions of the court-martial due to his heavy schedule and work load. He was unable to represent her. He recommended she accept a plea. She was unable to serve her last 3 years. She was not given severance pay. Her license was still investigated. She has been unable to maintain a job because of her military discharge and investigation of her license. 3. The applicant provides no additional documentation. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. In 1993, the applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve. She was awarded military occupational specialty 91B (Medical specialist). 3. On 26 August 2005, the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, pay grade O1, Army Nurse Corps. She was promoted to first lieutenant, pay grade O2 on 26 February 2007. 4. On 9 March 2007, the applicant was interviewed as a witness in a commander’s inquiry regarding adultery by an enlisted Soldier. During the interview, she admitted to having an intimate relationship with the enlisted Soldier. However, she denied knowing that he was married. 5. In a memorandum dated 26 April 2007, the applicant was reprimanded by a general officer for having a romantic relationship with an enlisted Soldier. The applicant did not elect to submit a rebuttal to the General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR). It was filed in her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). 6. A GOMOR, dated 15 May 2008, states the applicant was reprimanded for the following actions: * 6 November 2003 for speeding * 23 February 2004 for driving on a suspended license * 7 April 2005 for speeding * 22 August 2005 for driving on a suspended license and speeding * 26 September 2006 for driving on a suspended license and speeding * 14 January 2007 for speeding * 9 February 2007 for driving on a suspended license * June 2007 for issuing two worthless checks to a car dealership in the amounts of $1,200.00 and $1,829.31 * 6 July 2007 for driving on a suspended license * 6 September 2007 for failure to appear in Arlington County Court for a charge of driving on a suspended license * 10 October 2007 for speeding on Fort Myer 7. In a memorandum dated 13 June 2008, the Head Nurse of the hospital ward where the applicant was assigned stated that it had come to her attention that the applicant had went on weekend trips with a person who was a patient under her care in the ward. The applicant’s actions crossed the line of professional care provider to social acquaintance which raised concerns about the applicant’s ability to provide appropriate nursing care. The applicant was directed to have no further social contact with the patient and to not issue that person narcotics from ward supply. 8. In a memorandum dated 25 July 2008, the applicant, in rebuttal to the GOMOR dated in May 2008, admitted to making mistakes and that her actions had fallen below the standards of an officer. She contended that she had learned from her mistakes and realized the importance of her role as an Army nurse. She requested that the GOMOR not be placed in her OMPF. 9. In a memorandum dated 8 August 2008, an investigating officer (IO) states he was appointed to investigate matters concerning the applicant’s issuance, handling, management, administration, documentation and disposition of narcotics and other medications. The IO recommended that action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) be considered for the applicant ‘based on her making false official statements and for conduct unbecoming an officer. The IO also suggested that a law enforcement investigation be conducted to determine if criminal diversion of unused narcotics had occurred by the applicant or patient(s). 10. In a memorandum dated 18 August 2008, the imposing general directed the GOMOR be filed in the applicant’s OMPF. 11. In November 2008, charges were preferred against the applicant based on her repeated breaking of the law, violating patient-nurse responsibilities and failure to demonstrate the qualities/ethics of the Army Nurse Corps or of the officers in general. 12. In a memorandum dated 1 December 2008, the applicant’s counsel requested a delay in the Article 32 investigation due to his unavailability. On 2 December 2008, a delay was granted from 5 December 2008 until 19 December 2008. 13. In a memorandum dated 16 December 2008, the applicant submitted her voluntary request for resignation from the Army for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, chapter 3, paragraph 3-13. She did not desire to appear before a court-martial or board of officers. She further stated that she was not subjected to coercion and that she had been fully advised of and fully understood the implications of her request to resign. As a result of the applicant’s request, the Article 32 investigation was further delayed pending approval of her request. 14. On 16 January 2009, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for resignation in lieu of trial by court-martial. A general, under honorable conditions characterization of service was directed. 15. On 26 February 2009, the applicant was discharged from the Army. Her DD Form 214 shows she had completed 3 years, 5 months, and 27 days as a commissioned officer and had 14 years and 6 months as an enlisted health care specialist. Her characterization of service is shown as under honorable conditions (general). The narrative reason for separation is in lieu of trial by court-martial. 16. Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers), chapter 3, prescribes the tasks, rules, and steps for processing voluntary resignations. Paragraph 3-13 provides the rules for processing a resignation for the good of the service in lieu of general court-martial. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant contends that her military records should be corrected by showing she was discharged with an honorable characterization of service. She further contends that the reason shown on her DD Form 214 should be changed because she has not been able to maintain a job since her discharge from the Army. 2. The evidence of record shows, since being appointed as a commissioned officer, the applicant had a pattern of misconduct that extended from 2003 to 2008, when charges were preferred against her based on her repeated breaking of the law, violating patient-nurse responsibilities and failure to demonstrate the qualities/ethics of the Army Nurse Corps or of the officers in general. As a result, the applicant voluntarily requested to resign rather than undergo trial by court-martial. 3. Based on her record of misconduct, which included repeated issuance of worthless checks, traffic violations and dereliction of duties as an Army nurse, her service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel and did not rise to the level required for an honorable discharge. 4. The applicant’s argument that she has not been able to maintain employment does not justify changing the facts of her military record which accurately reflects her less than acceptable quality of service as a nurse and military officer. 5. There is no evidence of error or injustice in the applicant’s case. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X___ ____X___ ____X___ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _______ _ _X_____ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150008974 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150008974 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1