1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 10 July 2017 b. Date Received: 24 July 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, in June 2013, the applicant went out with fellow officers to Mitchells bar and grill, wherein they had a few drinks together and were beginning to split up to go back to their rooms when around 0140 a young woman approached the applicant and they began talking. The applicant states, the woman said the applicant was attractive and mistakenly responded in kind, saying she looked cute, unaware of who she was and should have done due diligence. Mitchells closed at 0145 to allow people time to get back to their rooms before the 0200 curfew. The young woman and the applicant walked and talked, never with any physical contact or intimate gestures, back to the lobby of her building before realizing she was a PVT with one of the support companies outside of the chain of command. The staff duty NCO in the barracks lobby asked what the applicant was doing there and told the applicant to leave. The applicant left for the room, walking/jogging the three miles and arrived just as the 0200 curfew was in effect. The next night a few senior officers wanted to grab a drink at Mitchell's again and the applicant was asked to join. The applicant saw the same PVT at the restaurant, she approached, and they exchanged greetings. Fully knowing who she was and the consequences of engaging with her, the conversation ended. The applicant was informed by the battalion commander that the applicant was being investigated for fraternization and breaking the 0200 curfew. The applicant strongly believes that, although MAJ M, the investigating officer, had good intentions, a proper investigation was not performed resulting in unfair assumptions and unfinished questioning of contradicting accounts. The applicant states, after giving the applicant's side of the story, the woman then gave her side of the story, which described the applicant as the one who initiated the conversations in hopes of having sex and that the applicant followed behind her to her building on the 14th, while she was walking with her friends. When witnesses were interviewed, they upheld the applicant's view of the events that night, but the investigating officer did not follow up with questions to determine why her story was false, which the applicant further details in the application. In the final report, the investigating officer could not conclude definitively that the applicant was back in the room at 0200 and stated that there was an "Indication" that the applicant was not in the room. This statement was later taken as a fact of guilt that the applicant was not in the room at 0200 and thus violated the curfew, despite no evidence. The applicant received an Article 15, which resulted in a suspended punishment of loss of pay and 60 day restriction to post. To the applicant's knowledge, no GOMOR was ever put in the permanent file and later learned that the applicant was being recommended for separation. The applicant was given an opportunity to write a rebuttal and ask to remain in the service, but declined as the applicant was ready to seek civilian employment. The applicant asked for an honorable discharge and was told by the company commander that MG V recommend the applicant for an honorable discharge. The applicant accepts responsibility for the mistake of putting oneself into a compromising position by speaking with a lower enlisted Soldier and it was ill advised to stay out late due to the curfew. The applicant does not believe the lifelong punishment of a general discharge fits the infractions or the rest of service to the nation. There were errors in the investigation when there was no follow up to her contradicting account with witnesses. The applicant maintains that there was no breaking of curfew and does not believe speculation, with no proof, should be used as fact in an investigation. There was never any physical contact of any kind or conversations outside of the two already mentioned. The female PVT was an aggressor upon the applicant and other officers in the battalion and was in poor standing with the Army. Aside from the incident, the applicant's service record was impeccable, wherein the applicant served in combat and received awards and accolades. Since discharge, the applicant met the woman who became a wife and they now have a son; and, the applicant hopes the son can grow up to be proud of his father. In the year immediately following discharge, the applicant struggled to find work as the applicant felt like a convicted criminal, yet no crime was ever committed. The applicant tries to live an honorable life, attends a local Baptist church, and volunteers in the community association, where the applicant sits on the board. The applicant's family has fought in every major war in the country's history and is ashamed to think that this has tarnished that proud history. The applicant apologizes to the Officer Corps for any black mark that has made on their proud tradition. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 8 March 2019, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. (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: 4 July 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 23 December 2013 (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(5) for personal misconduct and paragraph 4-2b(8) for conduct unbecoming of an officer, due to the following reasons: On 14 June 2013, he failed to obey the 2d Infantry Division Policy Letter #10-1 (Curfew, Pass and Leave), dated 21 March 2013, by failing to be in his assigned room during the hours of 0200 and 0500 hours. Furthermore, he knowingly fraternized with a junior enlisted Soldier, known to him, to be a junior enlisted Soldier, on terms of military equality by attempting to sign in as a guest at her barracks room, and telling her she was "cute" and telling her to not call him "Sir." His fraternizing with the Soldier also caused her to violate the division curfew policy. This misconduct resulted in him receiving a General Officer Article 15 that was filed in the performance section of his Army Military Human Resources Record. (3) Legal Consultation Date: 14 January 2014 (4) General Officer Show Cause Authority Recommendation Date / Characterization: 5 May 2014 / Honorable (5) DA Ad Hoc Review Board: 27 May 2014 (6) Deputy Assistant Secretary Army (Review Boards) Decision Date / Characterization: 10 June 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 31 July 2009 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment / Education / GT Score: 22 / Bachelor's Degree / NA c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-3 / 13A 5P Field Artillery, General / 4 years, 11 months, 4 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / Iraq (NIF) f. Awards and Decorations: BSM, ARCOM, AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR-2 g. Performance Ratings: 16 August 2010 - 1 May 2011 / Best Qualified 2 May 2011 - 7 February 2012 / Best Qualified 8 February 2012 - 30 August 2012 / Best Qualified 31 August 2012 - 15 April 2014 / Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Informal AR 15-6 Investigation Findings and Recommendations, dated 15 July 2013, reflects the investigation officer found that the applicant attempted to have an inappropriate relationship with PVT L in violation of Article 92, UCMJ, by leading PVT L from the CQ desk into the barracks hallway. Specifically, this action perceived to be, exploitive or coercive in nature. Additionally, there was an indication that the applicant violated 0200 on-post curfew in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. The investigation officer recommended that the applicant and PVT L, receive punishment under Article 15. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 8 October 2013, for fraternizing and violating the curfew policy. On 14 July 2013, he followed a service member to her barracks. He attempted to enter her barracks room even after the noncommissioned officer on duty informed him that his conduct was inappropriate. As a direct consequence of his actions, he was outside of his assigned quarters during curfew hours and he caused the aforementioned Soldier to be outside of her room also. Such conduct was entirely inconsistent with his position as an officer in the Army. GO Article 15, dated 8 October 2013, for failing to obey a lawful general order, curfew, pass and leave Policy letter (14 June 2013); and, for knowingly fraternize with PVT L, an enlisted person, on terms of equality (14 June 201. The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of one month's pay per month for two months (one month suspended); and restriction for 60 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; character statement; a self-authored statement and an Officer Evaluation Report. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states he met the woman who became his wife and they now have a son. He states, he tries to live an honorable life and attends a local Baptist church and volunteers in his community association, where he sits on the board. 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 investigation of his misconduct was improper. However, 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 applicant contends that he had good service. 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 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 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 8 March 2019, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / 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 AR20170011102 2