IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 April 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150016830 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: 13 April 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150016830 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: 13 April 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150016830 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 correction of his military records to show his character of service as general under honorable conditions. 2. The applicant states: a. He was discharged from the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) in 1992 for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14. The discharge was unjust because he was advised by drill sergeants to refuse to train if he was struggling or wanted to go home. He was advised to do so without understanding the consequences of such a decision at 18 years of age. If he had been given more support or been briefed on the consequences, he would not have followed those orders. b. He enlisted in the USAR as an 18-year old in 1992 with good intentions. He enlisted to serve his country and defend the Constitution. He did well with the physical challenges, but struggled emotionally with self-doubt. The transition was difficult for him and he suffered from his first bout of depression. He confided in drill sergeants and was referred to the behavioral and mental health clinic a few times during basic training. Although he needed the continued behavioral support, he was not allowed to see the psychologist on a regular basis and his performance suffered. Requesting to go to the behavioral and mental health clinic was shunned and he continued to struggle with other peers, some threatening suicide. He continued to confide in the drill sergeants, but he and others did not receive empathy and support. He was repeatedly told by drill sergeants to refuse to train if he wanted to go home. After hearing those words repeatedly, it sounded like the best thing to do. c. He was a good Soldier and he excelled in physical training. He struggled with adjusting, but he did his best. While working in an anti-tank exercise, he felt he was a danger to himself and he explained that to his drill sergeant. The drill sergeant interpreted his struggles as refusing to train. He was removed from training without knowing the ramifications of the decision. He was only requesting help with his mental health and emotions. d. Ironically enough, he was able to address his mental health issues and organize his life, and now serves as a social worker with mental health and behavioral sciences with the Department of Veterans Affairs. He provides behavioral couples' therapy for substance abuse disorders, crisis stabilization, suicide prevention, and counseling for high-risk veterans and those returning home from battlefields who are now struggling with adjusting. He again took the oath to honor this country and the Constitution as a Federal employee in 2006 and he has honored that oath to the fullest for the past 9 years by drawing on his short military experience to assist those veterans in their struggles returning from battle or preparing to return home as functioning members of our society. 3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). 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 this case 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 for timely filing. 2. The applicant enlisted in the USAR on 4 February 1992 for a period of 8 years. He was ordered to initial active duty for training on 6 August 1992. 3. Between 19 August 1992 and 7 October 1992, he was counseled in writing for: * being late for formation * failing to prepare for training * violating company standard operating procedures * engaging in horseplay in the barracks * having a lack of discipline * being disrespectful to a noncommissioned officer * failing to be at the appointed place of duty * refusing to train 4. On 11 September 1992, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for using disrespectful language toward a noncommissioned officer. 5. On 28 September 1992, he underwent a mental status evaluation. The psychologist diagnosed him with adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features. The psychologist found him mentally responsible, determined he would not adapt to military life, and recommended administrative separation. 6. On 1 October 1992, NJP was imposed against him for disobeying a lawful order. 7. On 10 October 1992, he was notified of his pending separation for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c. His unit commander cited the following reasons for the proposed action: * he displayed a pattern of misconduct * he continuously disobeyed the lawful orders of his chain of command * he refused to train 8. On 10 October 1992, he consulted with counsel and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 9. On 19 October 1992, the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of an entry-level separation (uncharacterized). 10. He was discharged on 22 October 1992 for misconduct (commission of a serious offense) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph  14-12c. He completed 2 months and 17 days of creditable active service. His service was uncharacterized. REFERENCES: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense. The issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. If characterization of service under other than honorable conditions is not warranted for a Soldier in entry level status, service will be described as uncharacterized. b. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c. Entry-level status is defined as the first 180 days of continuous active duty or the first 180 days of continuous active service after a service break of more than 92 days. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends his discharge is unjust because he was advised by drill sergeants to refuse to train if he was struggling or wanted to go home. There is no evidence of record and he provided no evidence to support this contention. 2. Although he contends he struggled emotionally with self-doubt and he suffered from depression, the evidence of record shows he underwent a mental status evaluation on 28 September 1992 and he was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features. The psychologist found him mentally responsible and determined he would not adapt to military life. 3. His administrative separation for misconduct was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. He had an opportunity to submit a statement in which he could have voiced his concerns and he failed to do so. 4. His brief record of service included numerous adverse counseling statements and two NJPs. 5. He completed less than 180 days of active duty service. 6. An uncharacterized separation is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier's military service. It merely means the Soldier has not served on active duty long enough for his or her character of service to be rated. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150016830 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150016830 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2