Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2009/05/04 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and supporting documents submitted by the applicant. 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: 090413 Chapter: 4-2b AR: 600-8-24 Reason: Unacceptable Conduct RE: SPD: JNC Unit/Location: 3rd Sqdn, 16th CAV, Ft Knox, KY 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: 33 Current ENL Date: 071217 Current ENL Term: NIF Years ????? Current ENL Service: 1 Yrs, 03Mos, 27Days ????? Total Service: 1 Yrs, 03Mos, 27Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: 2LT Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 19A Armor Officer GT: None EDU: College Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Reidsville, NC Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant was appointed a 2LT in the North Carolina ARNG effective 090414. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 19 December 2008, the applicant was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, AR 600-8-24, by reason of misconduct, moral or professional dereliction. The applicant was directed to show cause for retention in the Army after receiving a GOMOR on 080918 for misconduct which resulted in his removal from training in the Basic Officer Leader Course III and conduct unbecoming of an officer. He was advised that he could submit a voluntary resignation in lieu of elimination or submit a rebuttal and request an appearance before a Board of Inquiry. On 13 January 2009, the applicant submitted a memorandum for consideration to Show Cause for his retention on active duty. On 2 March 2009, the separation authority recommended separation with an honorable discharge. The Ad Hoc Review Board recommended that the applicant’s elimination be accepted with issuance of an honorable discharge. On 24 March 2009, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of honorable. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 600-8-24 sets forth the basic authority for officer transfers and discharges. Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for eliminating an officer from the Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interest of national security. AR 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 of the form, will be entered exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records, and the issue he submitted, the analyst determined that the evidence was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of the discharge under review. 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. By his misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge. The applicant provided no corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance. Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue and found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Therefore, the reason for discharge remain both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 22 March 2010 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: None Exhibits Submitted: Letters from two students, Discharge Orders from the Army National Guard dated 091026, Diploma from the Infantry Basic Officer Leader Course dated 090827, Service School Academic Evaluation Report dated 090821 and documents requesting a conditional release from the ARNG to Active Duty and a Report of Medical Examination dated 080506. VIII. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony 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 0 No change 0 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: No Change Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20090007634 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages