IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 April 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150005643 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x____ ___x____ ____x____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 April 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150005643 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 April 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150005643 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 an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to a general discharge. 2. The applicant states: a. He enlisted in the Army under the delayed entry program on 25 October 1989. His first day of basic training was on 29 December 1989 at Fort Sill, OK. He was assigned to Battery B, 1st Battalion, 31st Field Artillery. He graduated on 8 March 1990. He was then reassigned to Fort Bliss, TX, for advanced individual training (AIT). He trained for 37 weeks to be a hawk missile systems mechanic (military occupational specialty (MOS) 23R). He graduated on 12 October 1990. He reported for duty on 13 October 1990 to Battery B, Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion, 11th Air Defense Brigade. He was only there to process out for deployment overseas. He deployed on 9 November 1990. b. He was responsible for the service and maintenance of all of the equipment related to his MOS. Because his unit had the highest success rate, they were chosen to be the first battalion to enter Iraq to provide air support. He was and is currently proud to have served his country in the time of war. He can't forget the experiences of war. Although they had not actually seen combat first hand, what he saw and smelled still haunts him to this day. His unit went into Iraq shortly after the U.S. Air Force successfully completed their mission. What he encountered will stay with him for the rest of his life. The bloated and decomposing bodies of the Iraqi forces were enough. He recalls the smell, devastation, and crying people on the streets begging for food and water. c. They returned stateside on 6 April 1991 and were greeted with cheers from higher ranking officials, family members, and the public at large. They were provided and encouraged to drink beer as Saudi Arabia and Iraq were alcohol-free. Looking back, knowing what he knows now, this was the start of the end of his service in the military. He began drinking more frequently which eventually led to his alcoholism and drug abuse. He used the alcohol and drugs to forget what he had experienced overseas. He was anxious, depressed, and could not sleep, to name a few side effects. d. He began getting into more and more trouble. He wasn't able to accept any responsibility for his actions. He wasn't offered any therapy or counseling from his supervisors. He didn't know if post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was as widely recognized as it is today. He was ultimately discharged on 10 June 1992 with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. He would appreciate consideration of his merits and awards. e. In January 2012, he was diagnosed with a form of brain cancer known as "Fibrillary Astrocytoma." He is currently in counseling and has been in recovery for 2 years. He attends Alcohol Anonymous meetings on a regular basis. An upgrade of his discharge would help him to obtain a better life for himself, his family, and his country. 3. The applicant provides no additional evidence. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of the cases and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations. 2. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 December 1989, for 4 years. He held MOS 23R. He was advanced to pay grade E-2 on 29 June 1990. He served in Southwest Asia from 9 November 1990 through 6 April 1991. 3. He received non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on 18 July 1991, for being late or missing physical training formation on three occasions. He elected not to appeal. 4. He received counseling on 24 July 1991 for wrongfully using cocaine and his possible separation from the service. 5. He received NJP under Article 15, UCMJ, on 5 August 1991, for wrongfully using cocaine. His punishment included a reduction to pay grade E-1, a forfeiture of pay for 2 months, and 45 days of restriction and extra duty. He elected not to appeal. 6. He received counseling on 9 August 1991 for breaking restriction and failing to report for extra duty. 7. A Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 11 September 1991, shows the evaluation found he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the processing and was mentally responsible. The examining doctor diagnosed the applicant with an adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct. The examining doctor stated that the current data did not support a personality disorder and the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command. He also recommended the applicant be separated in accordance with chapter 9 (drugs and alcohol). 8. He received NJP under Article 15, UCMJ, on 12 September 1991, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty. 9. He received the following counseling on: * 28 October 1991 – for an approved bar to reenlistment * 25 November 1991 – or destruction of Government property * 11 December 1991 –for willfully destroying military property, wrongfully using marijuana, being drunk and disorderly, and being administratively separated from the Army 10. He received NJP under Article 15, UCMJ, on 17 December 1991, for damaging military property, wrongfully using marijuana, and being drunk and disorderly. He elected not to appeal. 11. On 27 April 1992, the applicant’s company commander initiated action to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Separation), chapter 14, for commission of a serious offense, with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. He stated the reasons for the proposed action were the applicant wrongfully using a controlled substance, damaging Government property, being drunk and disorderly, and failing to go to extra duty and breaking restriction. He advised the applicant of his rights. 12. On 28 April 1992, after consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation. He also acknowledged he could receive a less than honorable discharge and the results of the receipt of such a discharge. He waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 13. On 29 April 1992, the applicant's chain of command recommended his separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c. 14. On 15 May 1992, the separation authority approved the applicant’s UOTHC discharge. 15. He was discharged accordingly on 10 June 1992. He was credited with completing 2 years, 5 months, and 12 days of net active service. His service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) lists the Army Service Ribbon, National Defense Service Medal, Southwest Asia Service Medal with two bronze service stars, Kuwait Liberation Medal, Valorous Unit Award, and Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badges with Rifle (M-16) and Grenade Bars. 16. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations for an upgrade of his discharge. 17. On 17 July 2015, the Army Review Board Agency requested the applicant provide any medical documents which supported his issue of PTSD. He did not respond. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The regulation stated in: a. Paragraph 14-12c – Soldiers would be separated for the commission of a serious offense such as the abuse of illegal drugs. It provided that individuals in pay grade below E-5 could be processed after a first drug offense. The issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge was normally considered appropriate. The separation authority could direct a general discharge if such a discharge was merited by the Soldier's overall records. The separation reason in all separations authorized by that paragraph would be ?misconduct-drug abuse or abuse of illegal drugs.? b. Paragraph 3-7a – an honorable discharge was a separation with honor. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally had met the standards of acceptance conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate. c. Paragraph 3-7b – a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable condition. When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 2. On 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards and Service Board for Correction of Military/Naval Records to carefully considered the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical consideration, and mitigating factors when taking actions on applications from former service members administratively discharged and who had been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service. In these cases, PTSD was not recognized as a diagnosis at the time of service and, in many cases, diagnoses were not made until decades after service was completed. Quite often, however, the records of service members who served before PTSD was recognized, including those who served in the Vietnam theater, do not contain substantive information concerning medical conditions in either Service treatment records or personnel records. Liberal consideration would also be given in cases where civilian providers confer diagnoses of PTSD or PTSD-related conditions, when case records contained narratives that supported symptomatology at the time of service, or when any other evidence which could reasonably indicate PTSD or a PTSD-related disorder existed at the time of discharge which might had mitigated the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions Characterization of service. DISCUSSION: 1. The evidence of record shows the applicant committed a series of serious offenses to include wrongfully using controlled substances, wrongfully damaging government property, being drunk and disorderly, and other offenses. Accordingly, his chain of command initiated separation action against him. 2. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. He was accordingly discharged under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 due to this misconduct. 3. There is no evidence in his records and he provided none showing he was diagnosed with PTSD or PTSD-related conditions prior to, during, or after his period of active duty or that PTSD prevented his satisfactory completion of his term of enlistment. A mental status evaluation shows he was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder and cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command. 3. His contention that his merits and awards should be considered in upgrading his discharge was carefully considered. However, the quality of his service prior to his misconduct does not support or show that the separation process and/or the character of service he received were in error or unjust. His overall service did not rise to the level required for an honorable or a general discharge. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150005643 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150005643 6 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2