BOARD DATE: 3 April 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110019680 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge to honorable. 2. The applicant states, prior to being discharged he was being seen weekly by mental health doctors because he was having difficulty readjusting. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has diagnosed him with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI). 3. The applicant provides copies of his application to the Army Discharge Review Board and a VA compensation decision. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 October 2004. He completed the training requirements and he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 92Y (Unit Supply Specialist) and MOS 92S (Shower, Laundry, and Clothing Repair Specialist). 2. He was deployed to Iraq from 24 November 2004 to 16 November 2005 and from 10 February 2007 to 10 February 2008. 3. Counseling statements show the applicant was counseled for the following offenses (misconduct) on: * 27 October 2008, for a domestic verbal incident that escalated, the applicant choked his wife, and the military police were called * 18 November 2008, for driving while his license was suspended * 23 November 2008, for being late for work and disrespect towards a noncommissioned officer * 2 June 2009, for being absent from work 4. On 9 March 2009, the applicant was evaluated for headaches at the Troop Medical Clinic, Fort Benning, GA and referred for follow-up for traumatic brain injury. The record indicates the applicant was taking Prozac. 5. On 1 June 2009, the company commander notified the applicant of contemplated separation with a general discharge under honorable conditions due to a pattern of misconduct. 6. The command referred the applicant for a mental health evaluation. On 24 June 2009, a clinical psychologist with a doctoral degree determined the applicant's behavior was normal. He was fully alert, oriented, and he displayed an unremarkable mood. His thinking was clear, thought content normal, and his memory was good. There was no significant mental illness. The applicant was mentally responsible, had the ability to participate in the separation proceedings, and he met retention standards. The doctor's diagnosis was the applicant had an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood. The evaluation indicated there was no indication of PTSD or TBI at that time. 7. The applicant acknowledged the notification and consulted with counsel who advised him of his rights. The applicant indicated that he understood he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life as a result of a less than fully honorable discharge and that he might be ineligible for some veterans' benefits under Federal and state laws. 8. On 7 July 2009, he submitted a statement requesting retention in the Army. In effect, he acknowledged that he understood his behavior had been unacceptable, he recognized the seriousness of his actions, and apologized. He also asked for another chance to demonstrate his worth and abilities to the command and to the Army. 9. The company commander recommended a general discharge, the chain of command concurred, and the separation authority directed the issuance of a general discharge. 10. Accordingly, on 24 July 2009, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, due to a pattern of misconduct. He had completed 4 years, 9 months, and 18 days of creditable service. 11. On 10 September 2010, the ADRB denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge. 12. The VA awarded the applicant a 10 percent disability rating for grade 1 right acromioclavicular joint separation, a 10 percent rating for TBI with headaches and memory loss, and a 30 percent rating for PTSD, effective 25 July 2009. In July 2011, his rating for PTSD was increased to 100 percent disabling. 13. Title 38, U.S. Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service.  The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned.  Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual's medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency. 14. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include a pattern of misconduct (consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline). Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. b. 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. c. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. It is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant implies that he was not responsible for his actions because of mental/emotional problems. 2. The applicant's mental health evaluation indicated that he was responsible for his behavior and that there was no evidence of PTSD or TBI at that time. Additionally, he requested to be allowed to remain in the Army and admitted that he understood the seriousness of his actions. 3. The fact that the VA, in its discretion, has awarded the applicant a disability rating is a prerogative exercised within the policies of that agency. It does not, in itself, establish any connection between his claim of mental/emotional problems and the misconduct that led to the discharge. 4. In view of the foregoing there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X_ ___X_____ ___X_____ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _______ _ X _______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110019680 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110019680 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1