1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 28 June 2017 b. Date Received: 3 July 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests a Separation Code (SPD) and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, went through IBOLC between October 2015 and March 2016. The applicant recycled and tried the best, but did not pass the course due to the 5-mile run. The applicant tried doing a branch transfer with HRC, but was denied. After the denial, the applicant requested to go back to IBOLC to try again, but was denied by the commanding officer. During IBOLC, the applicant tried to be the best as a Soldier and officer and never gave up. The commanding officer wanted to discharge the applicant based on substandard performance when the applicant requested to try again and improve. The applicant believes the discharge was unjust because though the Infantry might not be the branch for the applicant, it does not mean the applicant is a bad officer. The applicant still desires to serve the country as an Officer in another branch, but the BHK code prevents the applicant from doing so. The applicant tried to put full effort into passing IBOLC in the past, but was not given a fair opportunity. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 25 September 2019, 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: Substandard Performance / AR 600- 8-24, Chapter 4-2A and 4-24A(1) / BHK / NA / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 27 April 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 30 September 2016 (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 4-2a(2) for failure to keep pace or to progress with contemporaries, as demonstrated by a low record of efficiency when compared with other officers of the same grade and competitive category, while assigned to 2d Battalion, 11th Infantry Regiment, 199th Infantry Brigade, Fort Benning, Georgia. The specific reasons for elimination: On 3 February 2016, he was released from Infantry Basic Officer Leadership Course (IBOLC) class 01-16 for failing to meet course requirements. On 22 April 2016, he was released from Infantry Basic Officer Leadership Course (IBOLC) class 03-16 for failing to meet course requirements. (3) GCMCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: On 7 February 2017, the GCMCA recommended approval of the applicant's resignation in lieu of elimination and that he be separated from service. / Honorable (4) DA Board of Review for Eliminations: The Army Board of Review for Eliminations considered the GCMCA's request to accept the applicant's resignation in lieu of elimination. (5) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 27 March 2017 / Honorable 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 4 May 2015 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment / Education: 32 / Master's Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-1 / None / 11 years, 11 months, 12 days / The applicant's service record is absent service documents to account for his total service. Based on the applicant's service record, it appears, the applicant's DD Form 214, blocks 12d and e, do not properly reflect his prior service. d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USMCR, 21 August 2000 - 22 July 2001 / NIF USMC, 23 July 2001 - 22 August 2005 / HD USMCR, 23 August 2005 - 21 August 2008 / NIF (Break in Service) USARC, 19 June 2012 - 1 May 2015 / NIF e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (6 March 2005 - 12 April 2005) f. Awards and Decorations: SSDR-2, USMCGCM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM g. Performance Ratings: Service School Academic Evaluation Report, dated 26 January 2016, reflects the applicant failed to achieve course standards in the Infantry Officer Basic Course. h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Developmental Counseling Form, dated 26 October 2015, for failing the initial 5-mile run. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 13 November 2015, for failing to achieve the minimum passing score on land navigation performance exam. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 10 December 2015, for failing to complete the 8-mile foot march within the two hour time standard. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 7 January 2016, for failing the 4-mile run. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 7 January 2016, for Mid-Course Peer Evaluation Failure. The applicant received a cumulative score of 52, which was the lowest evaluation in the platoon. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 19 January 2016, for failing to achieve minimum passing score on Operations Order. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 21 January 2016, for potential to be recycled because he failed the Initial 5-mile run, 8-mile foot march, OPORD #I and Peer #I. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 26 January 2016, for recommendation to be recycled because he failed the Initial 5-mile run, 8-mile foot march, Communicate a Tactical Plan (OPORD #I and #2) and Peer #I. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 21March 2016, for failing the 12-mile ruck march. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 31March 2016, for failing the initial 5-mile run. Recommendation for Casual Status (memo), dated 22 April 2016, reflects the applicant was recommended to be placed on casual status from IBOLC Class #03-16 for his failure to achieve course standards as outlined per the Infantry Officer Basic Course ISAP SOP by failing his Leadership Performance Assessment. Notification of Intent to be released for Academics, dated 22 April 2016, reflects the applicant was informed he was in jeopardy of being dropped from IBOLC class 03-16 for academic reasons. The applicant had failed to meet the IBOLC standards as outlined In the ISAP SOP by failing to achieve the grade of 70 percent in a leadership position during graded patrols. He had received three opportunities to pass a graded patrol and failed to achieve the 70 percent standard each time. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; DD Form 293; three letters of support. 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 "BHK" as the appropriate code to assign commissioned officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2a(1), substandard performance. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests a Separation Code (SPD) and a narrative reason change. 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 narrative reason for the discharge should be changed. However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraphs 4-2a and 4-24a(1), AR 600-8-24 with a honorable conditions discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Substandard Performance," and the separation code is "BHK." 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 28 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 contends his discharge was unjust because he was not given a fair opportunity. However, the evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing numerous counseling and by recycling the applicant in another IBOLC. The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts. Further, 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 third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. However, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. 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 25 September 2019, 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 a 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 / 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 AR20170002720 1