1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 4 August 2015 b. Date Received: 14 August 2015 c. Counsel: Yes 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant states through counsel, seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge was improper because it was based erroneous and undocumented reports of ethical violations. His response to initiation of elimination and other enclosed evidence was not forwarded for consideration by the separation authority, prior to his discharge from the US Army per regulatory guidelines. His discharge from the Army was also inequitable because, he was not allowed to recycle into a follow on IBOLC class, subsequent to the allegation of misconduct. He was the subject of arbitrary and capricious actions by a chain of command that treated the applicant’s alleged misconduct in a manner inconsistent with the treatment received by other IBOLC candidates. He received woefully inadequate legal assistance. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 25 July 2016, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length and quality of service, to include combat, and post service accomplishments. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason/Authority/Codes/Characterization: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 608-8-24, Paragraph 4-2b / JNC / NA / General, Under Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 27 January 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 27 July 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was required to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b, due to misconduct after being commissioned into the US Army. He was notified of the following reasons: During a field training exercise, he was caught leaving FOB Voyager without authority to meet his spouse (29 March 2010); Deliberately absenting himself or taking alternate routes during physical training runs, on a 12 mile foot march, and during the Ironman Competition; and Receiving a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) for multiple integrity violations on 27 April 2010; that GOMOR was filed in his OMPF on 18 June 2010. (3) Recommended Characterization: General, Under Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: The applicant's election of rights is not contained in the available record and government regularity is presumed in the discharge process. (5) Administrative Separation Board/BOI: The applicant was a probationary officer and therefore not entitled to a BOI. On 25 August 2010, the applicant submitted a rebuttal statement to the initiation of elimination under the provisions of AR 600-8-24. (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: The Army Ad HOC Board reviewed the applicant’s probationary elimination based on misconduct and moral or professional dereliction. On 21 December 2010, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 27 August 2009 / Appointed 2LT / NIF b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 28 / College Graduate / N/A c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: 2LT / O-1 / 11A, Infantry / 9 years, 11 months, and 11 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: USMC, 26 September 2000 - 5 January 2009 / HD (Break In Service) RA, 27 May 2009 - 26 August 2009 / HD e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan and Iraq (Prior Service) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ACM-CS, ICM-CS, GWTEM, GWTSM, ASR, CAB, NACM-4, MCGCM-2, NMCCOMMDL, SSDR-3, NUC-2, NMUC-3, MCAM, PSB g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: An administrative GOMOR, dated 27 April 2010, for committing multiple integrity violations as a student in Infantry Basic Officer Leaders Course (IBOLC). The applicant received a negative counseling statement, dated 29 March 2010, regarding the events that took place in on FOB Voyager; and an initial IBOLC counseling statement. i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; attorney’s memorandum, continuation of issues (20 pages); DD Form 214; declaration of applicant (six pages); DD 214, dated 5 January 2009; declaration of SFC C.K. (Ret, four pages); GOMOR; response to GOMOR; Notification of OMPF Filing of GOMOR; rebuttal to elimination notification (five pages): indexed binder of Marine Corps Service Records; USMC Fitness Reports; character reference letters; Presidential Service; personal awards; military promotions; military schools; DD Form 214's and discharge certificate; letters of appreciation; volunteer service; civilian college records; enlistment I reenlistment documents; original orders; notification of probationary officer separation; eight Marshall County Daily News Articles; KFVS News Articles; Hometown Hero Award; and Woodmen Lifesaver Award. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states he selflessly serves as a volunteer member of the Palm-Briensburg Fire Department and the Marshall County Rescue Squad. Both volunteer positions required the applicant to acquire several hundred hours of training and multiple certifications to operate in extremely hazardous conditions. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 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. A discharge of honorable, general, or under other than honorable conditions characterization of service may be granted. 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 officer Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b, unacceptable conduct. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. 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. The applicant’ unacceptable conduct diminished the quality of his service below meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. The applicant requested a change to the narrative reason for separation. 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 officer Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b, unacceptable conduct. The regulation further stipulates no deviation is authorized. The applicant seeks relief contending, his discharge was improper because it was based erroneous and undocumented reports of ethical violations; his response to initiation of elimination and other enclosed evidence was not forwarded for consideration by the separation authority, prior to his discharge from the US Army per regulatory guidelines. 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 this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that his discharge was improper or inequitable. The applicant further contends, his discharge from the Army was also inequitable because, he was not allowed to recycle into a follow on IBOLC class, subsequent to the allegation of misconduct; he was the subject of arbitrary and capricious actions by a chain of command that treated the applicant’s alleged misconduct in a manner inconsistent with the treatment received by other IBOLC candidates. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The applicant also contends, he received woefully inadequate legal assistance. The evidence of record shows on 28 July 2010, the applicant received the memorandum recommending his involuntary separation from active duty. He understood that he had 30 days to consult with counsel and submit his election of rights and any other matters. The applicant's election of rights is not contained in the available record. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. DOCUMENTS/TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted no additional documents or contentions. b. Witness(es)/Observer(s): None 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 25 July 2016, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length and quality of service, to include combat, and post service accomplishments.. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change SPD/RE Code to: No Change e. Restore (Restoration of) Grade to: NA AUTHENTICATING OFFICIAL: COL, US ARMY Presiding Officer Army Discharge Review Board Legend: 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 BH – Behavioral Health HD - Honorable Discharge OAD - Ordered to Active Duty SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OMPF - Official Military Personnel File TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP – Military Police – PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS – Entry Level Status MST – Military Sexual Trauma RE - Reentry UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20150013767 1