BOARD DATE: 14 April 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150004087 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states that he has proved to be a great citizen of his community and during the time he was in the military he was diagnosed with depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), sleep apnea, and other problems he did not have before his entry into the service. He goes on to state that he desires to finish his education and cannot receive his benefits with a general discharge. 3. The applicant provides copies of medical documents showing he was diagnosed as having sleep apnea, adjustment insomnia, inadequate sleep hygiene, allergic rhinitis, and PTSD. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 31 July 2008 for a period of 8 years. He completed his training as a signal support systems specialist and on 2 September 2010, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years and was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas. He deployed to Afghanistan during the period 20110619 – 20120617. 2. The facts and circumstances surrounding his administrative discharge are not present in the available records. However, his records do contain a DD Form 214 signed by the applicant which shows that he was discharged under honorable conditions on 6 June 2013 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, due to a pattern of misconduct. He had served 2 years, 9 months, and 6 days of active service. 3. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 2 February 2014 contending that his misconduct was caused by his PTSD. After reviewing the facts and circumstances of his case, the ADRB determined that his discharge was both proper and equitable under the circumstances and voted to deny relief in his case on 9 January 2015. 4. A review of his official records failed to reveal the pattern of misconduct that led to his discharge. 5. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and procedures for separating personnel for misconduct. Specific categories include minor infractions, a pattern of misconduct, involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities, and commission of a serious offense, which includes drug offenses. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 6. Paragraph 3-7a of Army Regulation 635-200 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. In the absence of the facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge, it must be presumed that the applicant's administrative discharge was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. 2. Accordingly, it must also be presumed that the characterization and the narrative reason for discharge were appropriate for the circumstances of his case. 3. The applicant's contention that his misconduct was caused by his PTSD has been noted; however, it appears that the applicant’s chain of command took his diagnosed condition into account was convinced that he knew the difference between right and wrong and that he had the ability to adhere to the right. Many Soldiers who have the same condition complete their service successfully without committing acts of misconduct. 4. Therefore, based on the available evidence and the government’s presumption of regularity, it appears that the characterization of his service was both proper and equitable and that there is no basis to grant his request for an upgrade of his discharge. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING __X______ __X______ ___X_ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _______ _ X_______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150004087 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150004087 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1