IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 17 April 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140004689 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the characterization of service was too harsh based on the length and quality of the applicant's service, to include his combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge, and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it. Presiding Officer I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Department of the Army Discharge Review Board in this case. THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND STATEMENT: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge characterization from general, under honorable conditions to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that he would like an upgrade of his discharge because he does not believe he was given a real chance to be treated for PTSD. He contends he was given UCMJ action to the fullest despite having received a diagnosis for the condition three months before being separated from the Army. A document indicating his diagnosis of a PTSD condition was presented to his commander during a UCMJ hearing and was only set aside without consideration. Afterwards his condition and alcohol abuse only escalated until his separation. He was given no other treatment except ASAP. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 13 March 2014 b. Discharge received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 15 May 2007 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, JKA, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: HHC, 1st Bn, 22 IN, Regiment, 1st Bde Combat Team, Fort Hood, TX f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 30 September 2004, 5 years and 20 weeks g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 6 months, 24 days h. Total Service: 2 years, 6 months, 24 days i. Time Lost: 24 days j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 19D10, Cavalry Scout m. GT Score: 102 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Southwest Asia p. Combat Service: Iraq (051204-061202) q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, ICM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, CAB r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: None t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 September 2004, for a period of 5 years and 20 weeks. He was 25 years old at the time of enlistment and a high school graduate. He was serving at Fort Hood, TX when his discharge was initiated. His record indicates he served a tour of combat in Iraq; achieved the rank of SPC/E-4; and earned several awards to include the ARCOM. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates on 30 April 2007, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of a pattern of misconduct. Specifically for the following offenses: a. going AWOL, b. failing to go to his appointed place of duty, c. overindulgence in intoxicating liquor incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties, d. wrongfully leaving his appointed place of duty, and e. disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer. 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights. 3. On 30 April 2007, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and did not submit a statement on 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 with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 4. On 1 May 2007, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 5. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 15 May 2007, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct, with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKA and an RE code of 3. 6. The applicant’s record of service indicates 24 days of time lost for going AWOL from 22 January 2007 until his return on 13 February 2007. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Two DA Form 4187's (Personnel Action), changing the applicant's duty status from present for duty (PDY) to absent without leave (AWOL) and AWOL to PDY. 2. Article 15, imposed on 14 February 2007, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (070119), going AWOL (070122-070214), disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer (070119), and wrongfully overindulgence in intoxicating liquor or drugs incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties (070119). The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $650.00 pay per month for two months, and extra duty and restriction for 45 days (FG). 3. Letter from B.A.J., L.C.S.W., dated 1 March 2007, on behalf of the applicant, indicated that after his meeting with the applicant, 27 February 2007, determined the applicant met the criteria for the diagnosis of 309.81 Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Chronic (PTSD). As a scout for the United States Army, the applicant unfortunately experienced the reality of human casualties, and subsequently his current symptoms far exceed the necessary minimum for a diagnosis of PTSD. It was also noted in the letter, he believed the applicant was unable to perform his job adequately, and continued exposure to various stimuli associated with his trauma significantly increased the likelihood of long-term health and interpersonal complications. 4. Several negative counseling statements dated between 19 January 2007 and 26 March 2007, for disciplinary for being drunk on duty, dereliction of duty, disobeying a noncommissioned officer, disregard of the Army Core Values of duty, respect, and integrity, and failing to report for duty. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, a letter from B.A.J., L.C.S.W, dated 1 March 2007, which determined the applicant meet the criteria for the diagnosis of PTSD, a copy of his recommendation for award of the ARCOM, news clipping articles of fallen Soldiers in his unit. The applicant also made reference to his EMT-I License, this document was not part of the documents attached to his application. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant states, in effect, since his discharge he has served his local community as a first responder/ EMT. REGULATORY AUTHORITY: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent 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. 2. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, 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. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual. 3. Army Regulation 635-200, 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. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered. 2. After examining the applicant’s record of service, the documents, and the issues submitted with the application, there are several mitigating factors to merit a partial upgrade of the applicant's characterization to honorable for the following reasons: a. length and quality of his service: The applicant served for over 2 years, 6 months, and 24 days of a 5 year enlistment; thus the preponderance of his service was honorable, b. the record confirms the applicant received numerous awards including the, ARCOM for his service in Iraq, and he achieved the rank of Specialist Four, and c. the record confirms IAW his mental status evaluation, that at the time of discharge the applicant was suffering with symptoms of psychological and physiological distress; i.e., several medical issues to include PTSD, nightmares, sweating, tremors, difficulty sleeping, anger outbursts, difficulty concentrating, social isolation, and hyper-vigilance of psychological stressors. 3. This recommendation is made after full consideration of all of the applicant’s faithful and honorable service, as well as the record of misconduct. The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant’s characterization of service may now be too harsh and as a result inequitable. 4. In view of the foregoing, it appears the characterization of the discharge is now inequitable and it is recommended the Board grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. However, the reason for the discharge was fully supported by the record and therefore, remains both proper and equitable. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 17 April 2015 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? NA Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Board Vote: Character Change: 3 No Change: 2 Reason Change: 0 No Change: 5 (Board member names available upon request) Board Action Directed: Issue a new DD Form 214: Yes Change Characterization to: Honorable Change Reason to: No Change Change Authority for Separation: NA Change RE Code to: NA Grade Restoration to: NA Other: NA Legend: AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record FG - Field Grade IADT – Initial Active Duty Training RE - Reentry AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NA - Not applicable SCM- Summary Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial CG - Company Grade Article 15 HD - Honorable Discharge OAD - Ordered to Active Duty UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge CID - Criminal investigation Department MP – Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont) AR20140004689 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1