IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 June 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140007392 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and notwithstanding the examiner’s Discussion and Recommendation that follows, the Board determined that the applicant's length and quality of his service including his combat service were not significantly meritorious to overcome the seriousness of the misconduct that caused his separation from the Army, and as a result the discharge was found to be proper and equitable. The Board further 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 to his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general, under honorable conditions. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he has made positive life changes since his discharge, to include enrolling in the Shepherd Share Military Treatment Program for his emotional and cognitive issues that resulted from his deployment. The applicant contends, an upgrade of his discharge will allow him access to benefits that will provide the stability he needs to continue of his positive path to becoming a productive member of society. The applicant contends, the discharge was unfairly rendered due to his post-diagnosed PTSD. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 24 April 2014 b. Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 20 March 2008 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, AR 635-200, Chapter 10, KFS, RE-4 e. Unit of assignment: E Company, 302d Brigade Support Battalion, Camp Casey, Korea f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 12 April 2004/4 years, 17 weeks g. Current Enlistment Service: 3 years, 11 months, 9 days h. Total Service: 3 years, 11 months, 9 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-2 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 88M10, Motor Transport Operator m. GT Score: NIF n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Korea p. Combat Service: Iraq (050107-051212) q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, NDSM, GWTSM, KDSM, ICM, ASR, OSR-2, CAB r. Administrative Separation Board: N/A s. Performance Ratings: N/A t. Counseling Statements: No u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 April 2004, for a period of 4 years and 17 weeks. He was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He served in Korea. He earned an AAM and a CAB and completed 3 years, 11 months, and 9 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Camp Casey, Korea. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458, Charge Sheet which indicates on 29 January 2008, the applicant was charged with violation of Article 91 (071201). 2. On 6 February 2008, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested, in writing, discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense. The applicant indicated he understood he could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veteran’s benefits. The applicant elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf. The unit commander and intermediate commanders recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 7 March 2008, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request and directed the discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The applicant was reduced to the lowest enlisted rank. 4. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 20 March 2008, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 5. The applicant’s record of service does not show any record of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. An Article 15, dated 14 August 2007, for lying to an NCO when asked a question (070727). The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $303.00 pay per month for one month (suspended), and 14 days of extra duty and restriction (CG). 2. DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 25 October 2007, reflects that the applicant had a clear and normal thought process and was mentally responsible. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: 1. The applicant provided a DD Form 293, undated, and a DD Form 214 covering the period of service under review. 2. Letter of recommendation, dated 3 April 2014, authored by Chief N, The Guardian Protective Services, states the applicant was previously employed at the agency. Chief N states the applicant always maintained an exceptional level of professionalism, courtesy and responsibility. Furthermore, Chief N states the applicant is valued and a community mentor and exemplary citizen of both the community and state. Chief N also mentioned that the applicant was selected for the prized Georgia Power account, which consisted of corporate security inside an access controlled facility. 3. Shepherd Center Medical Record, dated between 6 March 2014 to 11 March 2014, reflects the applicant’s medical history, physical examination, medical assessment, and medical plan (6 pages). 4. DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), dated 20 August 2005, reflects the applicant was awarded an Army Commendation Medal for his service while serving as a vehicle gunner during Operation Iraqi Freedom. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant states, he has made positive life changes since his discharge by enrolling in the Shepherd Share Military Treatment Program. REGULATORY AUTHORITY: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt. 2. Army policy states that although an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 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, his military records, the documents and the issues submitted with the application, there are several mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge to general, under honorable conditions for the following reasons: a. Length and quality of service: The applicant served 3 years, 11 months, and 9 days of a 4-year enlistment, thus the preponderance of his service was honorable. b. The record confirms the applicant received an ARCOM and CAB while serving a combat tour in Iraq. 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. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re-characterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. 5. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow him access to benefits. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 6. The applicant contends he was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) after his discharge from the military. However, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The record shows that on 25 October 2007, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong. 7. 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 general, under honorable conditions. However, the reason for the discharge was fully supported by the record and therefore, remains both proper and equitable. BOARD DETERMINATION AND DIRECTED ACTION After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and notwithstanding the examiner’s Discussion and Recommendation, the Board determined that the applicant's length and quality of his service including his combat service were not significantly meritorious to overcome the seriousness of the misconduct that caused his separation from the Army, and as a result the discharge was found to be proper and equitable. The Board further determined the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 19 June 2015 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? NA Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Board Vote: Character Change: 0 No Change: 5 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: No Change 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) AR20140007392 Page 2 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1