IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 14 January 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140020607 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and notwithstanding the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s quality of service to include his combat service and the circumstances surrounding the discharge, which includes his diagnosis of PTSD, 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 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. Counsel requests an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge from general, under honorable conditions to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for discharge. 2. Counsel states, in effect, the applicant’s discharge was unjust and inequitable because he would not have received the same discharge if current Army policies and procedures had been available to identify and treat Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and related behavior at the time of the applicant’s discharge. He contends the applicant had outstanding military service and his discharge was improper based on errors of fact, law, procedure, and discretion associated with his discharge prejudiced him and his discharge would not have occurred but for those errors. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 25 November 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 16 December 2010 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: C Company, 3d Brigade Special Troops Battalion, Fort Hood, TX f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 27 February 2008/3 years, 16 weeks g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 9 months, 20 days h. Total Service: 2 years, 9 months, 20 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 12B10, Combat Engineer m. GT Score: 88 n. Education: GED o. Overseas Service: SWA p. Combat Service: Iraq (081213-091109) q. Decorations/Awards: ICM-2CS, ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, CAB r. Administrative Separation Board: NA s. Performance Ratings: NA t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 February 2008, for a period of 3 years and 16 weeks. He was 21 years old at the time of entry and had a General Equivalency Diploma. He served in Iraq and earned an ARCOM and a CAB. He completed 2 years, 9 months, and 20 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Hood TX. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. On 30 November 2010, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, Misconduct (Serious Offense). Specifically for: a. disrespecting a superior commissioned officer, b. making a false official statement to a military police officer, and, c. being arrested on an outstanding warrant for resisting arrest or search. 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 1 December 2010, the applicant waived his right to consult 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. 4. On 1 December 2010, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 5. The applicant was separated on 16 December 2010, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKQ, and an RE code of 3. 6. The applicant’s record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. A MP Report, dated 22 September 2010, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation for wrongful possession of a prohibited substance (Spice)(On-Post) and wrongful possession of paraphernalia. 2. A MP Report, dated 9 February 2010, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation for resisting arrest (Warrants)(Off-Post). 3. Two negative counseling statements, dated 25 May 2010 and 14 June 2010, for unsatisfactory performance and missing formation. 4. Article 15, dated 26 July 2010, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x 3 (100520 x 2, and 100614) and being disrespectful to a commissioned officer (100520). The punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction for 14 days (CG). 5. MEDCOM FORM 699-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 24 September 2010, reflects the applicant had a clear and normal thought process, was mentally responsible, and able to distinguish between right and wrong. He was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with depressed mood. He was screened for PTSD and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and did not meet the diagnostic criteria for these conditions. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: Counsel provided a DD Form 293, dated 29 August 2014, with all listed enclosures. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: Counsel states since the applicant’s discharge, he is an active father and citizen, a devoted church member, and a recent technical school graduate. He also indicates the applicant has not abused illegal drugs or alcohol or been in any legal trouble. 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. 4. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (serious offense). DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. Counsel request for an upgrade of the characterization of the applicant’s discharge and change to the narrative reason was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, his military records, the documents and the issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. 2. Counsel contends the applicant’s narrative reason should be changed to Secretarial Authority. However, Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct, commission of a serious offense. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. 3. 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. The applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by a CG Article 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and two negative counseling statements. 4. Counsel 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. 5. Counsel contends the applicant’s discharge was unjust and inequitable because he would not have received the same discharge if current Army policies and procedures had been available to identify and treat PTSD and related behavior at the time of the applicant’s discharge. Counsel provided a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs, dated 27 May 2014, shows the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD related to his military service on 2 February 2012, and receives treatment for this medical condition. 6. 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 24 September 2010, 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. Further, there are many Soldiers with the same condition that completed their service successfully. 7. Counsel presented evidence the support the applicant was diagnosed by the veteran 8. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 9. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief. BOARD DETERMINATION AND DIRECTED ACTION After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and notwithstanding the Discussion and Recommendation, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s quality of service to include his combat service and the circumstances surrounding the discharge, which includes his diagnosis of PTSD, 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 proper and equitable and voted not to change it. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 14 January 2015 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? NA Counsel: Yes [redacted] Witnesses/Observers: NA Board Vote: Character Change: 5 No Change: 0 Reason Change: 1 No Change: 4 (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) AR20140020607 Page 6 of 7 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1