IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 April 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160016233 APPLICANT REQUESTS THROUGH COUNSEL: * correction of his military records to show: * 8 years of service in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) * 3 years of service in the Alabama Army National Guard (ALARNG) * 3 years of service on active duty * he was returned to active duty after being discharged * correct foreign service * discharge upgrade to honorable * change of re-entry code, separation code, and narrative reason for separation * Board appearance APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED THROUGH COUNSEL CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Counsels 13 page statement * Exhibits 1 – 47: * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge) with Foreign Service * DD Form 214 (Initial) * DD Form 214 (Recent) * Memorandum for Record: Authorized 1st Infantry Division Combat Patch * Memorandum for Record: Authorized 2nd Armored Calvary Regiment Combat Patch * NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) * Elimination approval 8 January 2013 * Appellate concurrence 17 January 2013 * Elimination recommendation 11 January 2013 * General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) * Memorandum lieutenant colonel (LTC) W recommendation: Re-Branch 28 January 2013 * Memorandum LTC W recommendation: Discharge 20 February 2013 * Memorandum major (MAJ) A recommendation: Re-Branch 18 January 2013 * Memorandum MAJ A recommendation: Discharge 19 February 2013 * Character reference from captain (CPT) P * Character reference from CPT R * Character reference from first lieutenant (1LT) S * Character reference from CPT L * Character reference from BC * Character reference from AC * Character reference from LT W * Family history LTC M DD Form 214 * Army Regulation (AR) 40-8 (Temporary Flying Restrictions due to Exogenous Factors Affecting Aircrew Efficiency) * Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 91.17 * DD Form 149 * Army Techniques Publication (ATP) 5-19 (Risk Management) * AR 600-85 (The Army Substance Abuse Program) paragraph 3-2a * General response to objections * MWR Director request Ft. Rucker Army 10 Miler Team * Ranger Challenge News Article 2009 * Distinguished Military Graduate * Diploma Troy University Masters of Science * Diploma Quartermaster School * Diploma Air Assault School * Certificate of Completion Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape (SERE) FACTS: 1. Counsel states: a. The applicant was improperly separated from the Army on 9 October 2013. Counsel outlined and highlighted the applicant’s military career, achievements, deployments and post deployment career. b. The applicant was an Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) commissioned officer, and as a byproduct of him being in the top 8-percent for his year group he was able to branch aviation and attend flight school at Fort Rucker. He was summarily discharged from the school for misconduct. He had successfully completed one (1) year of the course, one (1) day away from UH-60 (helicopter) instruments check ride. On the morning of 8 January 2013 he admitted to his instructor that he had been drinking the night before, but believed that he was not impaired. It was later shown that the applicant had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.02, which is below the Army's intoxication standards. The cadre told him they interpreted the course rules as requiring no alcohol. Nowhere in the rules for the course or any Army or federal regulation was there any mention of zero tolerance as being the standard. If zero tolerance is the standard it should be clearly stated in AR 40-8 as follows: Aircrew will not perform aviation duties for a minimum of 12 hours after the last drink consumed, until no residual effects remain and 0.00 BAC. c. The same morning at the event, the applicant was recommended for elimination by the flight commander and approved for elimination by the Battalion Commander. The command citing a violation of AR 40-8 as the basis. There was no specific section of the regulation cited and no mention of how it was violated. Oral and written rebuttal were said to be available to be sent to the flight and Battalion Commanders however, brief meeting with both that morning were his only opportunity to respond and all written rebuttals and prepared oral rebuttals had to go straight to the appellate authority i.e. the Brigade Commander. d. On January 18th and 28th, the applicant’s commanders, LTC W and MAJ A, met with him and issued recommendations stating he should be retained in the Army. He was then issued a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand "GOMOR" for the dismissal from flight school. On February 19th and 20th LTC W and MAJ A, without any further meetings, issued recommendations stating the applicant should be discharged. A few months later, the applicant appeared before, what General M referred to as, an "Ad Hoc" separation board without counsel. At this Faculty Board his previous exemplary military service was not properly reflected nor considered, he had no council and the standard for acceptable conduct during flight school was not clearly articulated. e. It is in the interest of justice for the Board to correct the Army's harsh reaction to a minor incident in the applicant’s past. He had a long history of exemplary service in the Army across the three different components. His troubles in the military began in the rigorous and academically challenging environment of flight school. As his records from the school show, the applicant had struggled during flight school and his instructors repeatedly counseled him, gave him extra time and asked him to consider re-branching and choosing another branch other than aviation. The applicant always declined and stated that he believed he could finish. They explained that any little mistake would be the end of his flight career due to the "cost of stick time" and his taking so long to complete flight school. f. The controlling regulation for alcohol use prior to flying is covered in AR 40-8 and FAR 91.17. AR 40-8 states that the "Aircrew will not perform aviation duties for a minimum of 12 hours after the last drink consumed and until no residual effects remain". FAR 91.17 states 8 hours since your last drink and no higher than 0.04 BAC. With a 0.02 BAC, the applicant was well within Army and Federal regulations. AR 40-8 does not define "residual effects", nor does it give a maximum BAC. The only Army regulation that lists the maximum BAC is in the army substance abuse programs, AR 600-85. This regulation states that "On-duty impairment due to alcohol consumption will not be tolerated. Impairment of Soldiers is defined as having a blood alcohol content equal to or greater than 0.05 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood". The applicant’s measured BAC was 0.02, clearly below the army standard, and he also stopped drinking 12 hours before his required report time of 0545. This is supported by two sworn statements. g. General M told the applicant in his office that if he did not admit to drinking within the 12 hours of the beginning of his flight duties that he was soon going to be Mr. M and no longer 1LT M. Two (2) sworn statements were provided stating the applicant did indeed quit drinking well before the 12 hour cut off. After this threat from General M, the applicant told the General that there was a chance that he drank within the 12 hours. Immediately after this admission, General M dismissed the applicant from his office and called him back a few minutes later to tell him it was his recommendation that the applicant be given a GOMOR placed in his permanent file, removed from flight school, discharged from the military, and given a general discharge. At this point, the applicant was again given the opportunity to speak. He explained to the General that he did not believe that he had drank within the 12 hours and had two sworn statements stating that he went to sleep before the cut off. He told General M that the only reason he had admitted to possibly drinking during the time period was because the General had threatened to end his military career if he did not admit to it. h. The applicant's 8 January 2013 event did not involve a violation of AR 40-8. It more appropriately identifies with operational risk management (ORM) which is taught in flight school. The flight training environment has always been promoted as a place of safe learning where mistakes are expected and used as teaching points. Training records are kept to monitor trends. The applicant made an unsound judgment call when determining he was fit for flying duties. Because he had never seen the process for reporting to the flight line with exogenous factors he did not know how to properly report. i. Although the applicant determined he had full exercise of his behavioral and physical faculties he reported his previous night's drinking when asked. Perceptions dictated he was impaired and called into question whether or not he was fit to fly. He was late and did not clean up properly before report time and smelled like alcohol from the day before. This was an ORM mistake on the applicant's part as described by Army Troop Publication (ATP) 5-19. j. The applicant apologizes and states that, if he could go back and never have a drink the night before his training flight he would. But he can't. It is a mistake he is living with every day. But please know that he is more regretful of what happened that day than anything else in his entire life. He believed that going into work that morning was the right answer. He believed that he was within the regulations but now he is no longer sure of that. On the morning of the flight he should have told the flight instructor right away that he had been drinking the night before and not waited until the flight instructor asked him to tell him he had. k. As a result of the applicant's continued commitment to supporting military personnel after his separation from the military, lack of counsel at the Faculty Board and compliance with AR 40-8, FAR 91.17 and AR 600-85 we [the applicant and counsel] ask that the Board return the applicant to active service, upgrade his characterization of service to honorable, and that his re-entry code, separation code and narrative reason be changed accordingly. 3. On 23 May 2000, the applicant enlisted in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) for a period of 8 years. 4. On 8 June 2000, he was ordered to initial active duty for training for approximately 10 weeks for basic training under the alternate (split) training program. He departed basic training on 1 August 2000 and completed 55 days of active duty service. 5. On 23 August 2000, the applicant entered active duty for training. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was released from active duty training on 20 November 2001 and shows in: * item 12c (net active service this period) – 2 months and 28 days * item 12e (total prior inactive service) – 1 year and 3 months * item 12f (foreign service) – none 6. On 7 December 2003, he was ordered (mobilization) to active duty in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was released from active duty and transferred to his Reserve unit on 24 March 2005. It also shows in: * item 12c (net active service this period) – 1 year, 3 months, and 18 days * item 12d (total prior active service) – 2 months and 28 days * item 12e (total prior inactive service) – 3 years, 3 months, and 16 days * item 12f (foreign service) – 11 months and 28 days 7. On 27 May 2008, the applicant was honorably discharged from the USAR. 8. On 31 August 2009, after a break in service, he enlisted in the AARNG for a period of 3 years. 9. On 4 May 2011, the applicant was discharged from the AARNG to accept an appointment as a commissioned officer. He was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer and executed an oath of office on 5 May 2011. 10. On 6 June 2011, he entered active duty. His total active duty commitment was for 6 years. 11. On 28 July 2011, the applicant was counseled for being cited by the Fort Rucker military police for a moving violation. His offense included excessive speed of 37 miles per hour (MPH) in a 20 MPH zone. 12. On 3 January 2013, he was counseled for unsatisfactory motivation on two consecutive days of training. The basic quality of motivation was cited for the unsatisfactory tasks because the applicant had been given assigned reading on both days, but he failed to complete the assignment on both training days. He was given overall unsatisfactory grades for both days. 13. On 8 January 2013, the applicant’s instructor provided a sworn statement wherein he stated: * the applicant was supposed to show at the flight line at 0545, but at 0532 he received a text message from the applicant saying he was going to be a few minutes late * at approximately 0630 the applicant arrived at the flight line; the applicant and instructor had a brief discussion about the Alabama – Notre Dame championship game * at 0650 the instructor sat down with the applicant to review his instrument flight plan and to conduct a crew briefing * at approximately 0700 when he asked the applicant to read out loud from the book, he noticed the overwhelming odor of alcohol on his breath * he asked Mr. P to confirm his suspicions; Mr. P and the section leader (AJ) both confirmed it * the applicant admitted to having a couple beers while watching the game * he asked the applicant at what time did he have his last alcoholic beverage and the applicant stated “about five o’clock”; the game didn’t start until 1930 * they discussed AR 40-8; the 12 hours minimum and no residual effects of alcohol in relation to performing aviation duties * due to safety reasons, the flight for the day was terminated; the applicant was transported to the military police station for blood alcohol testing; his breathalyzer test revealed a BAC of .02 * the applicant returned to the flight line and gathered his belongings and stated he was under the legal limit, and also stated he “should not have had that whisky or I wished I had brushed my teeth better or put on lotion” 14. On the same date, TLP also provided a sworn statement wherein he stated, he was asked to go and talk to the applicant to see if he smelled alcohol. He engaged the applicant and noticed his eyes were bloodshot, glassy, and he detected the smell of alcohol. The applicant was transported to the hospital for a blood sample to determine if he was in violation of AR 40-8. The results of a blood sample would take 2 weeks, so the applicant was command directed to take a breathalyzer that resulted in a BAC of 0.02. 15. The student management officer provided an elimination recommendation for the applicant and stated in part: a. The applicant’s complete disregard for the safety of himself, and his instructor pilot demonstrate a lack of maturity, decision making, and leadership that is expected from an officer in the United States Army. b. The applicant’s record also documents numerous flight deficiencies during both the contact and instrument stages of training In the UH-60 (helicopter) course, as well as other officer and leadership deficiencies. The following basic qualities were routinely cited as deficient: retention, aptitude, planning and judgment, alertness, crew coordination. c. Primarily the applicant’s lack of mature judgment and decision making, coupled with his flight deficiencies, result in his inability to be retained in UH-60 FSXXI. 16. A Record of Student Deficiency Action shows: * the applicant’s flight commander recommended elimination action for him, based on flight deficiency and due to safety violation * his company commander concurred with the elimination action and recommended approval based on a violation of AR 40-8, willful misconduct, and jeopardizing the safety of himself [the applicant] and his crew * the applicant indicated he did not have problems affecting his performance and if recommended for elimination he would present oral evidence to the elimination authority and submit written statements attached to the elimination packet * his battalion commander concurred with the elimination action and recommended approval * on 11 January 2013, the applicant appealed the elimination action * on 17 January 2013, the brigade commander concurred and approved the recommendation for elimination action 17. On 8 February 2013, he was reprimanded by the Commanding General, Headquarters, U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence. The GOMOR states in part: a. The applicant was hereby reprimanded for reporting to the flight line while showing the residual effects of alcohol consumption. On 8 January 2013, he reported 45 minutes late to the flight line. After reading his flight plan to his instructor pilot, he noticed the smell of alcohol on the applicant’s breath. Nearly three hours later, testing revealed his blood alcohol level at .02%. Furthermore, the applicant admitted to drinking several beers during the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) Football Championship the night before. b. This game started at 1930. The applicant’s morning report time was 0545. As such, the applicant clearly violated Army Regulation 40-8 by consuming alcohol within twelve (12) hours of his scheduled flight training. The applicant’s actions placed himself and others at risk of serious bodily injury or death. This behavior is completely intolerable. 18. On the same date, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR and elected to submit written matters within 7 calendar days. 19. The applicant submitted a rebuttal to the GOMOR and stated that, he fully acknowledged his actions were wrong. He had offered no defense of his actions until this point because he did not want to be viewed as defending them. He described the time-line of events that occurred hours before the flight line incident and highlighted his achievements throughout his military career. He also stated he purposefully quit drinking at 1700 because his wished to stay within the 12 hour rule. He wrongfully thought after that amount of time he was fine for flight. He misinterpreted the rule to mean that if he felt normal and it had been over 12 hours form his last drink he was okay to fly. He concluded by stating he did have a lapse of judgement, but he is worth retaining in the Army. 20. On 27 February 2013, after careful consideration of the applicant’s case, his rebuttal, and the chain of command’s recommendations, the imposing authority (General M) directed the GOMOR and allied documents to be placed permanently in the applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). The GOMOR is currently filed in the applicant’s AMHRR. 21. On 4 March 2013, the Command General (CG) notified the applicant that he was required to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2(b)(c), because of misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and derogatory information. a. He was also notified the CG initiated elimination action against him. The basis for this action was reporting to the flight line while showing residual effects of alcohol consumption resulting in a GOMOR (filed in his AMHRR), and conduct unbecoming an officer in violation of Article 133 (Uniformed Code of Military Justice). b. The applicant was advised of the basis for the contemplated elimination action, his available options and the rights available to him. c. The CG recommended he be discharged with a general, under honorable conditions character of service. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of elimination action. 22. On 12 April 2013, the applicant submitted written matters for the GOMOR and general discharge. He stated: a. He was the officer who violated AR 40-8. The night before the flight line he drank with friends. He then showed up the next morning with residual signs of alcohol in his system. This is what he did. He admitted to it fully. He had a lapse of judgment and put the safety of others in jeopardy by attempting to fly. This misconduct was unbecoming any officer in the military. b. He had no "But" in this letter, no excuse or explanation of his actions only that he had learned this lesson the hardest way possible. He would be grateful till the day he died if he were given a second chance to be what an officer should be. Honest, the hardest working and the example to all as to what right looks like. c. He had been in the Army since he was 17 years old and always thought he had a lot to offer the Army. As he is almost 30 now he realized the Army was offering him a lot in return. He respectfully asked to be allowed to remain in the Army. Barring that if the Commanding General decided that his time with the Army was over, he humbly asked that he be allowed to leave with an honorable discharge. 23. On 15 April 2013, after careful consideration of the applicant’s case and rebuttal matters, the Commanding General recommended to U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), the applicant be discharged with a general, under honorable conditions characterization of service. 24. On 3 July 2013, he was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command and did not require a medical evaluation board. 25. On 12 February 2015, by letter to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards), an official at HRC stated elimination action was initiated by the CG, U.S. Headquarters, United States Army Aviation Center of Excellence, Fort Rucker, AL, on 4 March 2013, in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), chapter 4, paragraph 4-2(b), for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction of duty. The General Officer Show Cause Authority recommends the applicant be discharged and receive a general, under honorable conditions characterization of service. 26. On 23 September 2013, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) stated that, the Department of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board has reviewed the Probationary Officer Elimination Case on the applicant. This elimination is based on misconduct and moral or professional dereliction (AR 600-8-24, para 4-2b) and derogatory information (AR 600-8-24, para 4-2c). The Deputy Assistant Secretary determined the applicant would be involuntarily eliminated from the United States Army with a general, under honorable conditions characterization of service. Recoupment action would be conducted in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 1-16, and Title 10 United States Code Section 2005. The applicant’s entire official military personnel file was reviewed and considered. 27. On 9 October 2013, the applicant was discharged from active duty. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2(b), by reason of unacceptable conduct with an under honorable conditions (general) characterization of service. He was given a separation code of JNC (misconduct, moral or professional dereliction) and reentry code NA. His DD Form 214 also shows in: * item 12a (date entered active duty this period) – 6 June 2011 * item 12b (separation date this period) – 9 October 2013 * item 12c (net active service this period – 2 years, 4 months, and 4 days * item 12d (total prior active service) – 1 year, 6 months, 16 days * item 12e (total prior inactive service) – 8 years, 2 months, 19 days * item 12f (foreign service) – none 28. He was awarded or authorized the: * National Defense Service Medal * Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal * Global War on Terrorism Service Medal * Army Service Ribbon * Overseas Service Ribbon * Armed Forces Reserve Medal with “M” Device * Air Assault Badge * Marksmanship Badge with Recoilless Rifle Bar 29. Counsel provided approximately 47 exhibits described above, and further provides in effect: a. Statements and character reference letters stating the applicant stopped drinking at 1700 the day prior to reporting to the flight line and while watching the game the applicant was not seen drinking. The character reference letters also support his reinstatement in the Army. b. Documents that highlight the applicant’s military career and his achievements. The documents and pictures also show his family’s military history and accomplishments. A time-line of the flight school events for the applicant, and his officer record brief. Applicable regulations, publications, and guidance were also provided. 30. Army Regulation 600-8-24 states elimination action may be or will be initiated as indicated in this paragraph. One of the reasons listed in sub-paragraph 4-2(b) is misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interest of national security. Action by the Deputy Assistant of the Secretary of the Army – Review Boards acting for the Secretary of the Army, is final. 31. Army Regulation 40-8 states factors to consider and appropriate medical restrictions to flying activities include, but are not limited to Alcohol. The regulation states aircrew will not perform aviation duties for a minimum of 12 hours after the last drink consumed and until no residual effects remain. 32. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) sets policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the force while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Soldiers for a variety of reasons. Readiness is promoted by maintaining high standards of conduct and performance. An honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitled the recipient to benefits provided by law. 33. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) states that, the DD Form 214 is a summary of a soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty. It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active duty service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge. Ensure all information on DD Form 214 is accurate and must be properly prepared according to prescribed guidance. 34. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)) paragraph 2-11 provides that, applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. 35. In reaching its determination, the Board should consider the applicant's petition, his statements, his service record, counsel’s statements, and all exhibits in light of the published Department of Defense guidance on equity, injustice, or clemency. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After review of the application and all evidence, the Board determined some relief is warranted. The applicant’s counsel contentions were carefully considered. The applicant’s performance led to the issuance of a GOMOR that was filed in his OMPF, and the subsequent initiation of separation procedures. He received due process in accordance with regulatory guidance and was recommended for an under honorable conditions characterization of service. His separation action was reviewed by and approved by the DASA (Review Boards). He was discharge accordingly. Regulatory guidance provides decision made by the DASA (Review Boards), acting for the Secretary of the Army, is final. Notwithstanding the DASA’s (Review Board) decision, the Board applied Department of Defense standards of liberal consideration to the complete evidentiary record. Based upon the preponderance of evidence, the Board agreed there is sufficient evidence to provide partial relief by making the following changes to his DD Form 214: provide an honorable characterization of service; amend his narrative reason for separation; and amend his separation and reentry codes. 2. The Board also agreed there is insufficient evidence to provide further relief as requested by his counsel. 3. The request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered. In this case, the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF :x :x :x GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing him a DD Form 214 for the period ending 9 October 2013 showing in: * item 24 (Characterization of Service): Honorable * item 26 (Separation Code): JFF * item 27 (Reentry Code): 1 * item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation): Secretarial Authority 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to: * 8 years of service in the USAR * 3 years of service in the ALARNG * 3 years of service on active duty * he was returned to active duty after being discharged * correct foreign service 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. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): Not Applicable REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges) prescribes the officer transfers from active duty (AD) to the Reserve Component and discharge functions for all officers on active duty for 30 days or more. a. Chapter 4 states an officer is permitted to serve in the Army because of the special trust and confidence the President and the nation have placed in the officer’s patriotism, valor, fidelity, and competence. An officer is expected to display responsibility commensurate to this special trust and confidence and to act with the highest integrity at all times. However, an officer who will not or cannot maintain those standards will be separated. b. Paragraph 4-2 (Reasons for elimination) states elimination action may be or will be initiated as indicated in this paragraph. One of the reasons listed in sub-paragraph 4-2(b) is misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interest of national security. c. Paragraph 4-20 (Processing an elimination of a probationary officer) states that, if an honorable or general discharge (under honorable conditions) is recommended, CG, Human Resources Command (HRC), will forward the case to the Secretary of the Army for final decision. The general officer show cause authority (GOSCA) will make a formal recommendation concerning the options submitted by the officer. CG, HRC, will forward the case to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (DASA) – Review Boards (RB). The DASA–RB may direct (1) retention, (2) discharge, or (3) referral to a Board of Inquiry. Action by the DASA–RB acting for the Secretary of the Army, is final. 2. Army Regulation 40-8 (Temporary Flying Restriction Due to Exogenous Factors Affecting Aircrew Efficiency) stipulates the minimum self-imposed temporary restrictions to be placed upon aircrew following exposure to certain physiological conditions in order to ensure optimal physiologic and psychological fitness in aircrew. Factors to consider and appropriate medical restrictions to flying activities include, but are not limited to Alcohol. The regulation states aircrew will not perform aviation duties for a minimum of 12 hours after the last drink consumed and until no residual effects remain. 3. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) prescribes the separation documents that must be prepared for Soldiers on retirement, discharge, release from active duty service, or control of the Active Army. The DD Form 214 is a summary of a Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty. It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active duty service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge. Ensure all information on the DD Form 214 is accurate and must be properly prepared according to prescribed guidance. For item 12 (Record of Service) – (a) Date Entered Active Duty (AD) This Period – Enter the beginning date of the continuous period of AD for issuance of this DD Form 214, for which a DD Form 214 was not previously issued. (b) Separation Date This Period – Enter the Soldier's transition date. This date may not be the contractual date if Soldier is separated early, voluntarily extends, or is extended for make-up of lost time, or retained on active duty for the convenience of the Government. (c) Net Active Service This Period – Enter amount of service this period, computed by subtracting item 12a from 12b. Lost time under Title 10 U.S. Code 972 and non- creditable time after expiration term of service (ETS), if any, are deducted. Such time will be identified in block 18. If soldier was released from active duty because of voided enlistment, enter "00 00 00." (d) Total Prior Active Service – From previously issued DD Forms 214, enter total amount of prior active military service less lost time, if any. If not applicable, enter "00 00 00." (e) Total Prior Inactive Service – From previously issued DD Forms 214 and/or enlisted record brief (ERB)/officer record brief (ORB), enter the total amount of prior inactive service, less lost time, if any. Delayed entry program time that began on or after 1 January 1985 is not creditable service for pay purposes and will not be entered in this block. However, it is creditable service for completing the statutory military service obligation, and will be entered in block 18. (f) Foreign Service – From the ERB/ORB, enter the total amount of foreign service completed during the period covered in block 12c. 4. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) sets policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the force while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Soldiers for a variety of reasons. Readiness is promoted by maintaining high standards of conduct and performance. a. An honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitled the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would have been clearly inappropriate. b. A general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 5. On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the type of court-martial. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court- martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice. a. This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, BCM/NRs shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment. b. Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses or similar benefits that might have been received if the original discharge had been for the revised reason or had the upgraded service characterization. 6. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)) paragraph 2-11 provides that, applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. Formal hearings are granted only when the Board determines that a case is so complex, or the records so incomplete that only sworn testimony can provide the necessary information. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160016233 14 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1