IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 21 October 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140014561 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony, and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. Presiding Officer I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Department of the Army Discharge Review Board in this case. THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND STATEMENT: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. 2. The applicant did not present any contentions based on propriety or equity in his application for the Board to consider. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 14 August 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 30 January 2014 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Unacceptable Conduct, AR 600-8-24 Paragraph 4-2b, JNC, NA e. Unit of assignment: HHD, 6th Ordinance Battalion, APO AP Korea f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 16 January 2008/Indefinite g. Current Enlistment Service: 6 years, 15 days h. Total Service: 17 years, 3 months, 3 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: DEP, 960911-961028, NA RA, 961029-981130, HD RA, 981201-991229, HD RA, 991230-030420, HD RA, 030421-050518, HD RA, 050519-080115, HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: CW2 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 890A0, Ammunition Technician m. GT Score: NA n. Education: Master’s Degree o. Overseas Service: SWA, Korea, Bosnia, Hawaii p. Combat Service: Iraq, (050118-060107) (060922-070806) (091130-100729) q. Decorations/Awards: MSM, ARCOM-5, AAM-7, AGCM-3, ICM-3CS NDSM, AFEM, GWOTSM, GWOTEM, KDSM NOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-6, NATO MDL, CAB r. Administrative Separation Board: Yes s. Performance Ratings: Yes t. Counseling Statements: NIF u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 October 1996, for a period of 2 years and 23 weeks. He was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He was appointed as a Reserve Warrant Officer of the Army on 16 January 2008, for an indefinite period of time. He served in Germany, Iraq, Bosnia, Hawaii, and Korea and earned the MSM, five ARCOMs, seven AAMs, three AGCMs, and a CAB. He completed a total of 17 years, 3 months, and 3 days of creditable military service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving in Korea. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence of record shows that on 4 April 2013, the applicant was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b(5) and 4-2c(1), by reason of misconduct, moral or professional dereliction and derogatory information in the OMPF. 2. The applicant was directed to show cause for retention in the Army after receiving a GOMOR for having an inappropriate relationship with a contractor at Joint Base Balad, Iraq, while he was married to another woman and receiving a referred OER, dated 11 April 2010 through 8 October 2012, both which were filed in his OMPF. 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. 3. On 29 May 2013, the applicant appeared with counsel before a Board of Inquiry (Show Cause Board). The Board found that the allegation of substantiated derogatory activity resulting in a GOMOR, and a referred OER, which were filed in his OMPF and the allegation of conduct unbecoming an officer as indicated were supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board recommended separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 4. The DA Ad Hoc Review Board recommended the applicant’s elimination action be accepted with issuance of a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 5. On 6 January 2014, 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 general, under honorable conditions. 6. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 30 January 2014, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 7. The applicant’s service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Six OERs covering the period of 11 April 2008 through 14 June 2013, reflects the applicant received five “Outstanding Performance” and one “Unsatisfactory Performance” ratings from his rater. He was rated as “Best Qualified” with two “Above Center Mass” ratings on two reports and one not evaluated on the remaining report. 2. A General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand dated 4 November 2010, for having an inappropriate relationship with Ms. V., a contractor at Joint Base Balad, Iraq, while married to another women. 3. DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), reflects the applicant successfully completed the Warrant Officer Basic Course. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided an online application, dated 11 August 2014, and a DD Form 214, covering the period of service under review. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant did not provide any in support of his application. REGULATORY AUTHORITY: 1. Army Regulation (AR) 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. 2. AR 600-8-24, paragraph 1-22a, provides that an officer will normally receive an honorable characterization of service when the quality of the officer’s service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty. An honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge and change to the narrative reason for separation was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicant’s record of service and his military records, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge. 2. The record confirms 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. 3. 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. Further, the applicant’s record contains no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. It appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 4. The applicant also requests a change to the narrative reason for his discharge. However, Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JNC" as the appropriate code to assign officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b, for unacceptable conduct. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. 5. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 6. Therefore, the separation code for discharge being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Personal Appearance Date: 21 October 2014 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes Counsel: Yes Witnesses/Observers: Yes Board Vote: Character Change: 0 No Change: 5 Reason Change: 0 No Change: 5 (Board member names available upon request) Board Action Directed: Issue a new DD Form 214: No Change Characterization to: No Change Change Reason to: No Change Change Authority for Separation: No Change Change RE Code to: No Change Grade Restoration to: NA Other: NA Legend: AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record FG - Field Grade IADT – Initial Active Duty Training RE - Reentry AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NA - Not applicable SCM- Summary Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial CG - Company Grade Article 15 HD - Honorable Discharge OAD - Ordered to Active Duty UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge CID - Criminal investigation Department MP – Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont) AR20140014561 Page 2 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1