1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 12 December 2016 b. Date Received: 19 December 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 10 years and 9 months of service, with no other adverse action. He was never found guilty of anything. He desires an upgrade to allow him to continue his education and pursue his MBA under the Post 9/11 GI Bill. He states, he is working with the Army as a contractor with the Gray Eagle Program as an instructor pilot. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 16 March 2018, 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 / JNC / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 15 July 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 1 March 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2b(3), 4-2b (5), 4-12b(12); and, 4-2c(5), for: the mismanagement of personal affairs to the discredit of the Army; committing acts of personal misconduct; conduct or actions by a warrant officer resulting in a loss of special qualifications; and receiving a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand that was filed in his OMPF. This action was based on the following specific reasons for elimination: On or about 2 July 2009, he wrongfully engaged in a prohibited relationship with Sergeant X and failed to take appropriate actions to prevent a subordinate from engaging in dangerous and illegal conduct . On 1 November 2009, he wrongfully engaged in an adulterous relationship with Mrs. X. On 31 December 2009, a General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand was filed in his OMPF. On 6 February 2010, the General Court-Martial Convening Authority approved the findings of a flight evaluation board that he demonstrated a pattern of unsatisfactory performance and / or undesirable habits or traits of character, and the recommendation that his aviation service be terminated. (3) Recommended Characterization: On 9 May 2010, a Board of Inquiry recommended the applicant be separated from the Army with a characterization of service of General (Under Honorable Conditions). (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) GCMCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 14 June 2010, the GCMCA recommended approval of the applicant's separation from service. / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (6) DA Ad Hoc Review Board: 17 June 2010 (7) Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) decision: 17 June 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 31 January 2002 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment / Education / GT Score: 29 / Bachelor's Degree / NA c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: CW3 / 152DI, OH-58D Scout Pilot / 10 years, 9 months, 29 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 30 September 1999 - 30 January 2002 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (15 November 2009 - 7 July 2010); Iraq (16 July 2003 -15 July 2004 / 1 March 2007 - 31 July 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, AM, ARCOM-2, AAM, PUC, VUA, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR-2, CAB g. Performance Ratings: 15 May 2003 - 20 May 2004 / Best Qualified 30 July 2005 - 30 June 2008 / Best Qualified 1 August 2008 - 31 December 2008 / Best Qualified 31 December 2008 - 13 July 2009 / Fully Qualified 14 July 2009 - 10 July 2010 / Fully Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Board of Inquiry as described in previous paragraph 3c. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 18 December 2009, for engaging in an adulterous relationship with Mrs. X., and on 1 November 2009, he had sexual intercourse with Mrs. X knowing that she was married. His dishonorable conduct called into question his integrity and is entirely unacceptable and further acts of this nature would not be tolerated. Flight Evaluation Board (FEB), Findings and Recommendations (memo), dated 23 January 2010, reflects the FEB found there was sufficient evidence that the applicant had demonstrated a pattern of unsatisfactory duty performance and / or undesirable habits or traits of character. The FEB recommended that the applicant's aviation service be terminated. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 and DD Form 293. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: He states, he is working with the Army as a contractor with the Gray Eagle Program as an instructor pilot. 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. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant's record of service, 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 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, such that he should have been retained. Further, the applicant's record contains no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the event that caused his discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Officers in the Army. Applicable Army Regulations, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. The applicant contends that he had good service which included three combat tours. 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. The applicant is to be commended for his accomplishments. 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 16 March 2018, 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 new Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD Code to: No Change f. Change RE Code to: 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 AR20170001129 4