Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2012/03/26 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that after returning from Iraq in April 2004, he came home a different person, was suffering nightmares and mood swings. He did not realize that he was suffering from PTSD and was drinking a lot and used pot to deal with the situation. He was later diagnosed by the Veterans Administration with PTSD and states that he will bring the documents to the Board to show his condition. He had good service and earned an Army Commendation Medal. 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: 050315 Discharge Received: Date: 050430 Chapter: 14-12c AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct RE: SPD: JKQ Unit/Location: HHC, Corps Spt Group, Bamberg, Germany Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 041005, failed to report (040803), wrongfully used marijuana (040703-040811), reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $556 (suspended), and 45 days of extra duty (suspended) (FG) Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 20 Current ENL Date: 020920 Current ENL Term: 5 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 07 Mos, 11 Days ????? Total Service: 02 Yrs, 07 Mos, 11 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 88N10/Traffic Mgt Coordinator GT: 103 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: SWA, Germany Combat: Iraq (030220-040216) Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: ????? Post Service Accomplishments: None listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 15 March 2005, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—commission of a serious offense for testing positive for an illegal drug (040924), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. On 15 March 2005, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, requested a personal appearance before an administrative separation board (was not entitled to a board) and did not submit a statement on his behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed separation action and recommended disapproval of the discharge and retention in the Army for rehabilitation purposes because this was his first offense. On 19 April 2005, the separation authority reviewed the commanders’ recommendations, 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 all the applicant’s military records and the issues submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors which would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. The applicant contends that he was suffering from PTSD and was self-medicating with alcohol and illegal drugs. However, 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. The applicant, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, compromised the trust and confidence placed in a Soldier. The applicant, as a Soldier, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's drug policies. By abusing illegal drugs, he knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The analyst acknowledges the applicant’s in-service accomplishments and considered the quality of his service during the initial portion of the enlistment under review which included an ARCOM award. However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge as shown by the documented misconduct for multiple violations of the UCMJ which included wrongfully using an illegal drug. Furthermore, the analyst acknowledges the applicant's transition to civilian life and noted his issue that he was suffering from PTSD. 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 record shows that on 25 January 2005, the applicant underwent a mental evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong. The analyst concluded that just because the applicant claims that he was suffering from PTSD does not mean he didn’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. In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined 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: 23 July 2012 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: Witnesses/Observers: None Exhibits Submitted: None VIII. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony, 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 AR20120006374 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 3 pages