1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 1 February 2016 b. Date Received: 4 February 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable and a change to his narrative reason for discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that his discharge should be upgrade because he believes the results of his General Officer Article 15 was improperly used in determining his character of service upon discharge. He contends his discharge does not accurately reflect his character of service. This is also taking into consideration the stress factors and the results of those factors that he experience in addition to his service. He believes his discharge is improper because it was based on one isolated incident that occurred in his personal life that was neither alcohol nor substance related and he continued to have honorable service and good conduct 10 months after his General Officer Article 15. He regrets the mistake he made after continuous honorable service and has shown through his actions that it was an aberration and something in which he has learned from. He believes he should not have to continue to suffer from the negative effects of his discharge. In the time that has followed, he has been an upright citizen in society as he has no criminal convictions or records and continues to be an upright citizen. He believes he should not have this negative stigma left on his military record. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 11 October 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24 / Chapter 4-2b and 4-24a(1) / BNC / NA / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 23 September 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 12 December 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed to show cause for retention on Active Duty under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-24 paragraph 4-2b(5), due to acts of personal misconduct and AR 600-8-24 paragraph 4-2c(1) derogatory information, punishment under UCMJ Article 15 for the following reasons: Participating in an adulterous relationship with Ms. X, a married woman not his wife; Conduct unbecoming an officer for the above referenced misconduct; and Receiving an Article 15 on 26 November for adultery. (3) Legal Consultation Date: 9 February 2015, the applicant requested resignation in lieu of elimination (4) GCMCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: 12 February 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (5) DA Ad Hoc Review Board Recommendation: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 24 August 2015 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Term of Service: 10 May 2009 / NIF b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: NA c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-3 / 25A, Signal Officer / 9 years, 4 months, 9 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 25 July 2006 to 12 January 2009 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (7 April 2010 to 6 April 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, MUC, ACM-CS, NATOMDL, ARCAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: 6 March 2008 to 26 October 2010, Best Qualified 27 October 2010 to 31 March 2011, Best Qualified 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012, Best Qualified 1 April 2012 to 25 December 2012, Best Qualified 26 December 2012 to 31 January 2014, Best Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CID Report, dated 18 November 2014, shows the applicant was the subject of investigation for sexual assault (adult) (insufficient evidence) and rape (adult) (insufficient evidence). GO, Article 15, dated 26 November 2014, for wrongfully having sexual intercourse with Ms. X, a married woman not his wife, such conduct being to the prejudice and good order and discipline in the armed forces between 4 December 2013 and 24 April 2014. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $2,843 pay per month for two months. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; personal statement, resignation in lieu of elimination memorandum; officer record brief; General Officer Article 15; CID Final Report of Investigation; letter or resignation; officer evaluation reports; FBI Background Check; State of Maryland Background Check; credit report; letter of recommendation from chain of command; letter of rejection from Defense Logistics Agency (ineligibility of employment due to not qualifying for VEOA); and letter of rejection from The Department of Veteran Affairs. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 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 "BNC" as the appropriate code to assign officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4, paragraphs 4-2b and 4-24a(1), unacceptable conduct. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant's record of service, and the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms that 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 diminished the quality of his service which led to the reason for his discharge. The applicant provided no corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or sufficient evidence that his service mitigated the unacceptable conduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained on Active Duty. Further, the applicant's record contains no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant was separated under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4, paragraphs 4-2b and 4-24a(1), with an under other than honorable conditions discharge as approved by the separation authority. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Unacceptable Conduct," and the separation code is "BNC." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be 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. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant seeks relief contending that his discharge should be upgrade because he believes the results of his General Officer Article 15 was improperly used in determining his character of service upon discharge. He contends his discharge does not accurately reflect his character of service. This is also taking into consideration the stress factors and the results of those factors that he experience in addition to his service. He believes his discharge is improper because it was based on one isolated incident that occurred in his personal life that was neither alcohol nor substance related and he continued to have honorable service and good conduct 10 months after his General Officer Article 15. He regrets the mistake he made after continuous honorable service and has shown through his actions that it was an aberration and something in which he has learned from. He believes he should not have to continue to suffer from the negative effects of his discharge. In the time that has followed, he has been an upright citizen in society as he has no criminal convictions or records and continues to be an upright citizen. He believes he should not have this negative stigma left on his military record. The applicant's contentions was noted; however, although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered and the applicant is to be commended on his accomplishments. 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 character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service 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. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 11 October 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a new DD-214/Issue new Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. SPD/RE Code Change to: No Change f. Restoration to Grade: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NCO - Noncommissioned Officer 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 NOS - Not Otherwise Specified SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OAD - Ordered to Active Duty TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP - Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS - Entry Level Status MST - Military Sexual Trauma PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable RE - Reentry VA - Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20160004690 1