IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 9 February 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140018621 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. 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 from general, under honorable conditions to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that his misconduct was the result of the medical issues he suffered with after his deployment to Iraq. He contends that while serving in Iraq he developed sleeping problems after a rocket explosion and couldn't rest completely. After returning his sleeping was still an issue and he couldn't relax at all; and his anxiety was at the point where he couldn't go into stores without having a panic attack. He contends he should have gotten help, but going to behavioral health would have hurt his potential for growth and made people in his unit look down on him. He voluntarily started to receive treatment through behavioral health and was diagnosed with all the signs and symptoms of PTSD, (i.e., anxiety, depression, depressed mood, emotional numbness, etc) while on active duty but no official diagnosis was made. His chain of command was aware of his issues but never gave him any corrective training to help the initial issue. He contends he was immature at the time of discharge and believes 10 years ago if his situation occurred he would still be in the military. His unit added stress; the only time they communicated was in the event he was being given corrective training. His unit isolated him with labeling him a "shit-bag Soldier," and left him to deal with the stress of war on his own, then punished him when he failed. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 23 October 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 12 June 2012 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE: Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, JKA, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: 632d CS Maint, Fort Stewart, GA f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 30 June 2009, 4 years and 33 weeks g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 11 months, 13 days h. Total Service: 2 years, 11 months, 13 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 25P10, Microwv Sys Op/Maint m. GT Score: 113 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Southwest Asia p. Combat Service: Iraq (100603-110603) q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR 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 June 2009, for a period of 4 years and 33 weeks. He was 20 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He was serving at Fort Stewart, GA, when his discharge was initiated. The record does not contain any evidence of acts of valor or meritorious achievements. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates on 25 April 2012, 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 for two alcohol related incidents within a year and FTRs. 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 2012, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and indicated his intentions to submit a statement on his own behalf which was not found in the record. 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 23 May 2012, 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 12 June 2012, 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 a RE code of 3. 6. The applicant’s service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Military Police Report dated 12 April 2011, which indicates the applicant was cited for driving under the influence. 2. Court document, dated 28 September 2011, from the City of Hinesville, Liberty County, Georgia, indicating the applicant was found guilty by the court of the offense of "License not on his person and contempt of court. 3. Article 15, imposed on 5 December 2011, for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x 4 (110728, 110915, 110920 and 111004). The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-3, forfeiture of $429.00 pay for one month (suspended), extra duty and restriction for 14 days, and an oral reprimand (FG). 4. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 20 December 2011, for driving while under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol content at the time of .153 percent. 5. A Record of Supplementary Action under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 9 January 2012, which vacates the suspension of punishment of forfeiture of $429.00 pay per month for one month imposed on 5 December 2011, for driving under the influence of alcohol on 29 December with a blood alcohol content at the time of .194 percent. 6. GOMOR, dated 13 January 2012, for driving while under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol content at the time of .194 percent. 7. Article 15, imposed on 29 February 2012, for physically controlling a vehicle while the alcohol concentration in his breath was .194 grams or more of alcohol per 210 liters of breath as shown by chemical analysis (111229). The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $745.00 pay per month for two months (suspended), extra duty for 45 days, restriction for 45 days, and a oral reprimand (FG). 8. Several negative counseling statements dated between 28 July 2011 and 20 April 2012, for several occasions of failure to report, two occasions of driving under the influence and revocation of on post driving privileges, failure to make the special population physical training program, going AWOL, warrant for his arrest, and recommendation for discharge under the provision of Chapter 14-12c. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, self-authored statement, and a letter of support, dated 4 May 2012. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: None provided with the application. 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. However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, the documents and the issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. 2. The record confirms 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. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By the pattern of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by two Article's 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice; two offenses of driving under the influence of alcohol; two General Officer Memorandum's of Reprimand, and several negative counseling statements. 3. 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. 4. The applicant contends his misconduct was the result of the medical issues he suffered with after his deployment to Iraq (i.e. symptoms of PTSD, anxiety, depression, depressed mood, emotional numbness, and etc). However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was suffering from symptoms of PTSD, anxiety, depression, depressed mood, emotional numbness, and etc. In fact, the applicant’s two Article 15s, two GOMOR's, and numerous negative counseling statements justify a pattern of misconduct. The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. 5. The applicant contends his unit isolated him by labeling him a "shit-bag Soldier," and left him to deal with the stress of war on his own, then punished him when he failed. However, evidence shows before initiating discharge proceedings, the command ensured the applicant was appropriately counseled about his deficiencies which could lead to separation. The command made an assessment of the applicant's potential for becoming a fully satisfactory Soldier. The evidence contained in the service record establishes the applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome noted deficiencies. As the applicant did not subsequently conform to required standards of discipline and performance, the command appropriately determined the applicant did not demonstrate the potential for further military service. 6. Furthermore, by regulation, a UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of misconduct. It appears the applicant’s generally good record of service was the basis for his receiving a general, under honorable conditions discharge instead of the normal under other than honorable conditions discharge. However, his misconduct clearly diminished his overall record of service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. 7. The applicant contends he started receiving treatment through behavioral health; however, the service record contains no evidence the applicant was receiving treatment through behavioral health and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. 8. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. 9. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, the analyst recommends the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 9 February 2015 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? No Counsel: None Board Vote: Character Change: 1 No Change: 4 Reason Change: 0 No Change: 5 (Board member names available upon request) Board Action Directed: Issue a new DD Form 214: No Change Characterization to: No Change Change Reason to: No Change Change Authority for Separation: No Change Change RE Code to: No Change 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) AR20140018621 Page 2 of 7 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1