Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2012/02/24 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he requests an upgrade due to receiving a VA service-connected PTSD. He states he had returned from a tour in Afghanistan for a couple of months and had PCS’d to Fort Irwin. His squad leader had recommended for him to see a mental health specialist for PTSD-related symptoms. He had seen a mental health specialist and was prescribed psychiatric medication. He had not slept for three days when he was arrested. He feels that he should have received a medical retirement or an honorable discharge due to his circumstances. He feels he was having severe issues trying to readjust after returning from Afghanistan. He feels his actions were very wrong when he was arrested; yet, he feels the psychiatric medication prescribed him were a factor in his actions along with causing sleep deprivation. He states the Army provided him no support because of his arrest and charges being filed within the civilian sector when he tried to explain his situation to the court. He adds that if he had been able to provide the court with details concerning his mental problems and the medication prescribed him, he feels the court would have assigned him to a treatment program to aid him with his PTSD as opposed to having him serve time and being integrated into a criminal society. He states that at that time, veterans’ court was not available and he was not provided the opportunity to redeem himself in an honorable manner. However, he has been attending monthly psychiatric appointments since 2006, as well as, monthly one on one counseling, weekly PTSD group meetings, and couples’ counseling. He states he received a VA 30% disability rating for his PTSD, but that he is currently appealing it. He appreciates the Board’s consideration. He provides a self-authored statement attached as remarks to Item No. 15 of his application. II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Tender Offer: NA See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Discharge Under Review Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 031222 Discharge Received: Date: 040122 Chapter: 14-12b AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct RE: SPD: JKA Unit/Location: Anti-Tank Co, 2nd Sqdn, 11th ACR, Fort Irwin, CA Time Lost: Civil Confinement for 34 days (dates NIF) Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 21 Current ENL Date: 010222 Current ENL Term: 3 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 11 Mos, 01 Days ????? Total Service: 05 Yrs, 02 Mos, 13 Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA (981110-010221) / HD Highest Grade: E-4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 11B (Infantryman) GT: 114 EDU: GED Overseas: Haiti, SWA Combat: NIF Decorations/Awards: ARCOM; AAM; AGCM; ACM-BS; GWOTSM; OSR; NCPR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: ????? Post Service Accomplishments: He states, in effect, that he attends monthly psychiatric appointments since 2006, as well as, monthly one on one counseling, weekly PTSD group meetings, and couples’ counseling. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 12 December 2003, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-5, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—for conviction by a civil court for robbery and robbery in the second degree, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. On 12 December 2003, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval of the separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 7 January 2004, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 of this regulation 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, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or absence without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of the entire applicant’s military records, and the issue and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors which would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. The analyst determined 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 military personnel. By the misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of the former Soldier’s service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance. Furthermore, the analyst acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and noted the diagnosis of PTSD outlined in his application. However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The analyst concluded that just because the applicant suffers from PTSD does not mean he doesn't know the difference between right and wrong or that he did not have control over his behavior. There are many Soldiers with the same condition that complete their service successfully. Further, the analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. However, upon reviewing the applicant's DD Form 214, the analyst found that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, at block 12b the year of the "Separation Date This Period" as "2003." However, that correction to the DD Form 214, does not fall within the purview of this Board. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), utilizing the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. Moreover, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the analyst found additional erroneous entries applicable to the applicant's discharge currently under review on the applicant's DD Form 214: at block 25, separation authority as “AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12B,” and block 26, separation code as “JKA." In view of the foregoing and notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the analyst recommends that the applicant's DD Form 214 be administratively corrected to reflect block 25, separation authority: “AR 635-200, Chapter 14, Section II"; block 26, separation code to read "JKB;" and block 28, narrative reason for separation to read "Misconduct (Civil Conviction)," as it was approved by the separation authority. Except for the foregoing modifications, the analyst found that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 8 June 2012 Location: Washington, D.C. Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293, dated 21 February 2012 with self-authored statement; DD Form 214 for service under current review. VIII. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. IX. Board Decision Board Vote: Character - Change 0 No change 5 Reason - Change 0 No change 5 (Board member names available upon request) X. Board Action Directed Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA XI. Certification Signature Approval Authority: ARCHIE L. DAVIS III Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board BONITA E. TROTMAN Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army Secretary Recorder Legend: AWOL Absent Without Leave GCM General Court Martial NA Not applicable SCM Summary Court Martial BCD Bad Conduct Discharge GD General Discharge NIF Not in the file SPCM Special Court Martial CG Company Grade Article 15 HD Honorable Discharge OAD Ordered to Active Duty UNC Uncharacterized Discharge DD Dishonorable Discharge HS High School Graduate OMPF Official Military Personnel File UOTH Under Other Than Honorable FG Field Grade Article 15 IADT Initial Active Duty Training RE Reentry Code Conditions ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20120004118 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages