SAMR-RB 30 November 2016 MEMORANDUM FOR Case Management Division, US Army Review Boards Agency, 251 18th Street South, Suite 385, Arlington, VA 22202-3531 SUBJECT: Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings for, AR20150008132 1. Reference the attached Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings, dated 27 September 2016, in which the Board members unanimously recommended denial of the applicant's request. 2. I have reviewed the findings, conclusions, and Board member recommendations. I find there is sufficient evidence to grant partial relief. Therefore, under the authority of Title 1O, United States Code, section 1552, I direct that all Department of the Army Records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing the applicant a DD Form 214 showing his characterization of service as "General, Under Honorable Conditions." 3. Request necessary administrative action be taken to effect the correction of records as indicated no later than 30 March 2017. Further, request that the individual concerned and counsel, if any, as well as any Members of Congress who have shown interest be advised of the correction and that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records be furnished a copy of the correspondence. BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: Encl Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) CF: ( ) OMPF BOARD DATE: 27 September 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150008132 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X____ ___X_____ ___X_____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 27 September 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150008132 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined 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. BOARD DATE: 27 September 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150008132 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: * reinstatement to active duty, effective 13 March 2012, in the rank of staff sergeant (SSG) * transfer to the Warrior Transition Unit (WTU) at Fort Huachuca, AZ * in effect, referral into the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) * in effect, should the above requests not be approved, upgrade his general discharge under honorable conditions to honorable * to personally appear before the Board 2. The applicant states, in effect: a. He joined the Army in June 1974 with the intention of serving in Vietnam. He ended up not going to Vietnam, but was on active duty from 1974 to February 1975. He was separated under the provisions of chapter 13 (Separation for Unfitness or Unsuitability) (sic, paragraph 5-37 (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)), Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel). His separation was based on his mother's illness and being an only child. b. He joined the Arizona Army National Guard (AZARNG) in February 1983. He served in both the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) and the AZARNG from 1983 to 13 March 2012. Based on orders, he was placed in a USAR Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) status on 31 May 2005. He assumed duties with the 800th Military Police (MP) Command and was later reassigned to the 200th MP Command. c. In June 2008, he mobilized with the 479th Engineer Battalion, 40th Engineer Brigade, for a deployment to Iraq. While deployed in March 2009, he suffered injuries due to a fall. He injured his right knee, had concussion syndrome, and sustained a sprain to his cervical spine. He was first medically evacuated to the Landstuhl Army Medical Center, Germany, and was then moved to the WTU at Fort Huachuca. While at Fort Huachuca, he underwent rehabilitation for his injuries and was returned to active service in an AGR status. d. On 28 August 2011, he suffered another fall, this time in his home. The fall aggravated his earlier injuries and initially left him paralyzed. He was taken to the University Medical Center Trauma Unit in Tucson, AZ. His wife notified his unit that he had been hospitalized. He was placed on the phone and advised he needed to provide substantiating documentation or his absence would be considered unauthorized. e. He was evaluated by the University Medical Center staff and then transferred to the Health South Rehabilitation Center in Tucson, remaining there in an in-patient status until 1 October 2011. His command continued to request substantiating medical documentation, but at no time did they either visit him in the hospital or offer any assistance. f. Upon his discharge from the rehabilitation center, he was granted convalescent leave for the period 1 October 2011 to 31 October 2011. He continued his rehabilitation as an outpatient and remained in contact with his unit administrator (UA). g. On 2 November 2011, he continued to report for medical treatment and notified his command that he was unable to walk. He reported to Davis - Monthan Air Force Base (AFB), where he was granted additional convalescent leave for the period 1 November 2011 to 1 December 2011. h. On 21 November 2011, he was placed on a physical profile and was requested to report to work for 3 hours. He was, however, unable to drive from his home to his place of duty. His command offered no assistance and the command's work environment did not offer wheelchair accessibility. i. On 2 December 2011, he was given an addendum to his physical profile that requested he work from home and to check in daily by telephone. He was told by his command that, contrary to medical advice, he was required to be present at his work station. Again, his command offered no assistance with transportation, and the working conditions/alternative living conditions did not permit him to accomplish this task. He was told if he did not report, he would be considered absent without leave (AWOL). During this time, he was in constant contact with his command by both phone and email. j. On 20 December 2011, based on guidance from the military investigator, he reported in to Fort Huachuca and was given a 48 hour pass to report to the 415th Regiment in Phoenix, AZ. On receiving these instructions, he and his wife departed for Phoenix. While enroute, he contacted his UA by phone. His UA told him he was no longer assigned to that unit and was to report to Fort Sill, OK. k. On or about 27 January 2012, he was transported to Fort Sill, where he was informed charges would be dropped and he would be transferred to a WTU. On 13 March 2012, he was told he was being "chaptered-out" for AWOL and was sent home. l. During the above period, he was struggling with experiences from his deployment to Iraq. He had feelings of depression, loss of sleep, irritability, and hyper-arousal. He informed his chain of command of this, but they offered no assistance. He felt shunned and isolated and believed the command climate was not conducive to seeking behavioral health (BH) care. m. Since his discharge, he has sought BH care from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). He has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (implying PTSD may have contributed to the periods of AWOL that led to his discharge). In addition, he still suffers from paralysis as well as the loss of sensation on his left side; he must use a wheelchair. 3. The applicant provides: * email correspondence from his Representative in Congress * letter of support, dated 20 February 2015 * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) ending 13 March 2012 * Orders 073-1308, dated 13 March 2012 * eight pages of separation-related documents dated between January and March 2012 * letter, dated 16 June 2015 from Army Review Boards Agency * 15 pages of medical documents from VA, dated between August 2011 and March 2012 * 67 pages of military medical records dated between June 2008 and December 2009 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 June 1974. He was discharged on 3 February 1975 with a general under honorable conditions discharge. His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows: * he completed 7 months and 14 days of net active creditable service * the authority was AR 635-200, paragraph 5-37 * the separation program designator was KMN (Failure to Maintain Acceptable Standards for Retention (EDP)) 3. His official military personnel file contains the following documents: a. National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) indicating he enlisted in the AZARNG on 19 April 1983 and was honorably discharged on 25 July 1984 for the purpose of enlisting in the USAR. b. Orders Number R-05-575540, dated 18 May 2005, issued by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, ordering him to active duty in an AGR status effective 1 June 2005. c. DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action) showing the following duty status changes: * present for duty to AWOL on 1 November 2011 while assigned to 1st Battalion, 415th Regiment, 2nd Brigade, 95th Training Division * AWOL to dropped from Army rolls (DFR) on 1 December 2011 * DFR to present for duty/returned to military control on 20 December 2011 at Fort Huachuca while assigned to the U.S. Army Personnel Control Facility (PCF), Fort Sill * present for duty to AWOL on 23 December 2011 while assigned to the PCF (Section IV (Remarks) states he was released by Fort Huachuca, but failed to appear at Fort Sill) * AWOL to DFR on 24 December 2011 * DFR to present for duty/returned to military control at Fort Huachuca on 26 January 2012 4. On 3 February 2012, his commander at Fort Sill preferred court-martial charges against him for two specifications of AWOL (from 1 November 2011 to 20 December 2011 and 23 December to 26 January 2011, respectively). 5. On 3 February 2012, the applicant consulted with counsel. He was advised of the basis for his contemplated trial by court-martial, after which he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. 6. In his request for discharge, he indicated he: * was making the request of his own free will and had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person * was advised of the implications that were attached to his request * acknowledged that, by requesting discharge, he understood the elements of the offense charged, was admitting guilt to the charge (or of a lesser included offense), and that the offenses could impose a bad conduct discharge or a dishonorable discharge * understood, if his discharge request was approved, he could be given an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and this type of discharge could cause him to be deprived of many or all Army benefits * understood he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a Veteran under both Federal and State laws and could encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life as a result of having an under other than honorable conditions discharge * elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf 7. His OMPF does not include the action taken by the separation authority, but it does contain a DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged with an under other than honorable conditions discharge on 13 March 2012. It also reflects: a. He had 6 years, 6 months, and 20 days of net active service this period with two periods of lost time (20111101 - 20111219 and 20111223 - 20120126, respectively). b. He was awarded or authorized: * Army Commendation Medal (3rd Award) * Army Achievement Medal * National Defense Service Medal * Army Service Ribbon * Armed Forces Reserve Medal with "M" Device * Driver and Mechanic Badge with Driver - Wheeled Vehicle Clasp c. He was deployed to Iraq from 8 July 2007 to 15 October 2008. d. The separation authority was AR 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 10 (Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial), and the narrative reason was listed as being in lieu of trial by court-martial. 8. On 21 June 2012, he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his character of service. On 26 February 2013, the ADRB found the reason for discharge and the characterization of his service were both proper and equitable. 9. The applicant provided medical evidence of a PTSD diagnosis. He also submitted a letter of support, addressed to his Congressional Representative, from a person identified as a Peer Support Specialist, who also serves as a community outreach coordinator for the AZ Spinal Cord Injury Association. This person essentially stated: * his job is to help individuals with any type of disability to live a more independent life by providing peer support * he had been meeting with the applicant for several months and affirmed the applicant suffered from PTSD, along with a host of other disabling conditions (traumatic brain injury (TBI), depression, anxiety, and paralysis) * he first met the applicant at the University of AZ disability resource center, and they have been meeting on a regular basis ever since * the applicant and his family are seriously concerned about financial issues as well as the lack of proper medical treatment * the applicant sustained a TBI while serving his country in Iraq; this was in 2008, at which point he had served as an AGR Soldier for more than 20 years (sic) * following this injury, he had some family issues; his father passed away and his father-in-law was diagnosed with cancer * he requested a job transfer from CA to AZ so he could be closer to his family * in 2011, while under tremendous stress, he fell down the stairs of his home, causing a spinal cord injury; he now suffers from paralysis and needs a wheelchair for everyday mobility * he tried to be medically boarded out of the AGR and was told this would happen with full benefits; instead he was treated with no tolerance or patience * he received an under other than honorable conditions discharge and now receives no financial backing for the time he served; his family is in serious danger of losing their home * as a concerned citizen and an advocate for individuals with disabilities, the writer was requesting assistance from the Congressional Representative * after more than 20 years of successful, even outstanding service, there was no way the applicant's record should be destroyed because of a couple of unfortunate incidents occurring in a very short period of time * the applicant, and all who know him, believed what happened was the direct result of his TBI and PTSD; both were aggravated by the added stress of life events (his father's and father-in-law's illnesses) * the applicant is a good man who is trying to better support his family, but he has been turned down because his case is "too complicated" and has been told assistance is only available to those who served honorably * the writer cannot believe the applicant's full service record was being judged on a couple of bad months, and he asked the Congressional Representative to help the applicant obtain Veteran's benefits 10. In an advisory opinion, dated 5 August 2016, the Chief, BH Division, Health Care Delivery, Medical Command, Office of The Surgeon General (OTSG), rendered an advisory opinion. This OTSG official stated: a. The applicant most recently entered active duty on 31 May 2005, and was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 13 March 2012 in accordance with AR 635-200, chapter 10. He was deployed to Iraq from July 2007 to October 2008. b. In June 2015, he requested the Board upgrade his discharge. OTSG was asked to determine if his mental health condition (PTSD) contributed to the misconduct leading to his discharge under other than honorable conditions. The opinion was based on the information provided by the Board and records available in the Department of Defense (DOD) electronic medical record (Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application). c. Records indicate the applicant sustained a TBI in 2008 while deployed in Iraq. A TBI consult conducted on 26 November 2008 found "no evidence of any cognitive problem that would likely interfere with any aspect of work or [activities of daily living]." At this time, he was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features, with the observation that "depression and PTSD symptoms were resolving." From February to June 2009, "PTSD features [were] present but decreasing in intensity and frequency." He was noted to have made significant progress through December 2009, when he had his last regular BH visit. d. His unauthorized absence occurred between November 2011 and January 2012. On 18 January 2012, he presented to Primary Care with suicidal thoughts and was referred to the emergency room. The applicant states he was unable to obtain records from Palo Verde Mental Hospital where he was a patient "before [his] discharge." His initial contact with the Veterans Center was in August 2011, when he reported symptoms of PTSD resulting from his service in Iraq. e. Documentation indicates his PTSD symptoms had improved significantly, with intermittent exacerbation when under stress. There is no information provided that links his periods of AWOL to his diagnosis of PTSD. 11. On 11 August 2016, the Case Management Division of the Army Review Boards Agency provided the applicant a copy of the advisory for his review and comment. The applicant did not respond. REFERENCES: 1. AR 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial at any time after the charges have been preferred. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. b. Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is given when the quality of the Soldier’s service has generally met standards of acceptable conduct and duty performance. c. 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. 2. PTSD can occur after someone goes through a traumatic event like combat, assault, or disaster. a. The DSM is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), and it provides standard criteria and common language for the classification of mental disorders. In 1980, the APA added PTSD to the third edition of its DSM-III nosologic classification scheme. Although controversial when first introduced, the PTSD diagnosis has filled an important gap in psychiatric theory and practice. b. From a historical perspective, the significant change ushered in by the PTSD concept was the stipulation that the etiological agent was outside the individual (i.e., a traumatic event) rather than an inherent individual weakness (i.e., a traumatic neurosis). The key to understanding the scientific basis and clinical expression of PTSD is the concept of "trauma." 3. PTSD is unique among psychiatric diagnoses because of the great importance placed upon the etiological agent, the traumatic stressor. In fact, one cannot make a PTSD diagnosis unless the patient has actually met the "stressor criterion," which means he or she has been exposed to an event that is considered traumatic. a. Clinical experience with the PTSD diagnosis has shown that there are individual differences regarding the capacity to cope with catastrophic stress. Therefore, while most people exposed to traumatic events do not develop PTSD, others go on to develop the full-blown syndrome. Such observations have prompted the recognition that trauma, like pain, is not an external phenomenon that can be completely objectified. b. Like pain, the traumatic experience is filtered through cognitive and emotional processes before it can be appraised as an extreme threat. Because of individual differences in this appraisal process, different people appear to have different trauma thresholds, some more protected from, and some more vulnerable to developing clinical symptoms after exposure to extremely stressful situations. 4. The Fifth Revision of DSM-5 was released in May 2013. This updated edition included changes to the diagnostic criteria for PTSD and acute stress disorder. The PTSD diagnostic criteria were revised to take into account things that have been learned from scientific research and clinical experience. The revised diagnostic criteria for PTSD include a history of exposure to a traumatic event that meets specific stipulations and symptoms from each of four symptom clusters: intrusion, avoidance, negative alterations in cognitions and mood, and alterations in arousal and reactivity. The sixth criterion concerns duration of symptoms; the seventh assesses functioning; and the eighth criterion clarifies symptoms as not attributable to a substance or co-occurring medical condition. a. Criterion A, stressor: The person was exposed to: death, threatened death, actual or threatened serious injury, or actual or threatened sexual violence, as follows: (one required) (1) Direct exposure. (2) Witnessing, in person. (3) Indirectly, by learning that a close relative or close friend was exposed to trauma. If the event involved actual or threatened death, it must have been violent or accidental. (4) Repeated or extreme indirect exposure to aversive details of the event(s), usually in the course of professional duties (e.g., first responders, collecting body parts; professionals repeatedly exposed to details of child abuse). This does not include indirect non-professional exposure through electronic media, television, movies, or pictures. b. Criterion B, intrusion symptoms: The traumatic event is persistently re-experienced in the following way(s): (one required) (1) Recurrent, involuntary, and intrusive memories. (2) Traumatic nightmares. (3) Dissociative reactions (e.g., flashbacks) which may occur on a continuum from brief episodes to complete loss of consciousness. (4) Intense or prolonged distress after exposure to traumatic reminders. (5) Marked physiologic reactivity after exposure to trauma-related stimuli. c. Criterion C, avoidance: Persistent effortful avoidance of distressing trauma-related stimuli after the event: (one required) (1) Trauma-related thoughts or feelings. (2) Trauma-related external reminders (e.g., people, places, conversations, activities, objects, or situations). d. Criterion D, negative alterations in cognitions and mood: Negative alterations in cognitions and mood that began or worsened after the traumatic event: (two required) (1) Inability to recall key features of the traumatic event (usually dissociative amnesia; not due to head injury, alcohol, or drugs). (2) Persistent (and often distorted) negative beliefs and expectations about oneself or the world (e.g., "I am bad," "The world is completely dangerous"). (3) Persistent distorted blame of self or others for causing the traumatic event or for resulting consequences. (4) Persistent negative trauma-related emotions (e.g., fear, horror, anger, guilt, or shame). (5) Markedly diminished interest in (pre-traumatic) significant activities. Feeling alienated from others (e.g., detachment or estrangement). (6) Constricted affect: persistent inability to experience positive emotions. e. Criterion E, alterations in arousal and reactivity: Trauma-related alterations in arousal and reactivity that began or worsened after the traumatic event: (two required) * Irritable or aggressive behavior * Self-destructive or reckless behavior * Hypervigilance * Exaggerated startle response * Problems in concentration * Sleep disturbance f. Criterion F, duration: Persistence of symptoms (in Criteria B, C, D, and E) for more than one month. g. Criterion G, functional significance: Significant symptom-related distress or functional impairment (e.g., social, occupational). h. Criterion H, exclusion: Disturbance is not due to medication, substance 5. The Department of Defense (DOD) acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge. a. This acknowledgement is the result of the extensive research conducted by the medical community, along with the relatively recent issuance of revised criteria regarding the causes, diagnosis, and treatment of PTSD. b. It is also recognized that, in some cases, this undiagnosed condition of PTSD may have been a mitigating factor in the misconduct that served as a catalyst for the Soldier's discharge. c. Of note, research has demonstrated that misconduct stemming from PTSD is typically based upon a spur of the moment decision resulting from temporary lapse in judgment; therefore, PTSD is not a likely cause for either premeditated misconduct or misconduct that continues for extended periods. 6. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense gave written guidance to Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs). The memorandum directed them to consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations, and mitigating factors when taking action on requests for upgrades in the character of service for former service members who had a valid diagnosis of PTSD. 7. BCM/NRs are not courts, nor are they investigative agencies. Therefore, the determinations are based upon a thorough review of the available military records and the evidence provided by each applicant on a case-by-case basis. When determining if PTSD was the causative factor for an applicant's misconduct and whether an upgrade is warranted, the following factors must be carefully considered: * Is it reasonable to determine that PTSD or PTSD-related conditions existed at the time of discharge? * Does the applicant's record contain documentation of the occurrence of a traumatic event during the period of service? * Does the applicant's military record contain documentation of a diagnosis of PTSD or PTSD-related symptoms? * Did the applicant provide documentation of a diagnosis of PTSD or PTSD-related symptoms rendered by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider? * Was the applicant's condition determined to have existed prior to military service? * Was the applicant's condition determined to be incurred during or aggravated by military service? * Do mitigating factors exist in the applicant's case? * Did the applicant have a history of misconduct prior to the occurrence of the traumatic event? * Was the applicant's misconduct premeditated? * How serious was the misconduct? 8. Although DOD acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge, it is presumed that they were properly discharged based upon the evidence that was available at the time. a. Conditions documented in the record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which PTSD or PTSD-related conditions may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge; those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. b. BCM/NRs will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat-related PTSD or PTSD-related conditions as a causative factor in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. c. PTSD is not a likely a cause of premeditated misconduct. Corrections Boards will also exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. 9. AR 600-8-10 (Leaves and Passes), prescribes policies and procedures for military leave. Regarding convalescent leave, it states a hospital commander is the approval authority for convalescent leave for 30 days or more, and then only when the Soldier has been hospitalized. The unit commander is the approval authority for up to 30 days of convalescent leave based on a doctor’s diagnosis and subsequent recommendation. There is no entitlement to convalescent leave. 10. AR 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes policies and procedures for the ABCMR. It states, in pertinent part, the ABCMR considers individual applications that are properly brought before it. a. Paragraph 2-9 contains guidance on the burden of proof. It states, in pertinent part, that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity, which is that what the Army did was correct. b. The ABCMR is not an investigative body and decides cases based on the evidence that is presented in the military records provided and the independent evidence submitted with the application. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. c. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or request additional supporting documentation or opinions. It states further, in paragraph 2-11, that applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. DISCUSSION: 1. By regulation an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the Board. The Director of the ABCMR, or a panel of the Board, can authorize a personal appearance. In this case, the evidence of record is sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision at this time. 2. The applicant was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200. Discharges under this chapter are due to a voluntary request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant voluntarily, willingly, and in writing requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. All requirements of law and regulation appear to have been met, and that the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 3. The applicant contends his periods of absence were related to serious injuries sustained from a fall in his home and that he was convalescing for at least a portion of what was later counted as AWOL. He additionally implies PTSD may have contributed to the periods of AWOL that led to his discharge. a. He claims he was on convalescent leave from 1 October 2011 through 31 October 2011, and then granted an additional 31 days of convalescent leave (1 November 2011 through 1 December 2011) by an unidentified person or agency at Davis - Monthan AFB (changing his first 31 days of AWOL to an authorized absence). (1) He provides no evidence to support this claim. (2) By regulation, only a hospital commander is authorized to approve periods of convalescent leave for more than 30 days. Neither the evidence of record nor that offered by the applicant indicates a hospital commander authorized him the additional 31 days of convalescent leave. b. He describes being told he had to report for duty and indicates the reasons for not complying were because his command offered no transportation assistance and did not have working conditions that could accommodate his wheelchair. He further contends he was in constant contact with his unit via email and telephone. (1) He was responsible for obtaining his own means of transportation to his place of duty. Additionally, he submits no evidence he ever requested transportation support and that the request was then denied. (2) The fact that he was in contact with his unit does not change that his absences were unauthorized. (3) He acknowledges being told by his unit that, if he did not comply with their directives to report for duty, he would be in an AWOL status. 4. Beyond asserting he was granted convalescent leave until 1 December 2011, he essentially offers no clear explanation or supporting evidence to address the remaining periods of absence. 5. As to whether PTSD contributed to his discharge, OTSG's evaluation of his medical records showed no information that linked his periods of AWOL to his diagnosis of PTSD. 6. With regard to upgrading the character of his service, the applicant's periods of AWOL during the referenced term of service appear to have diminished the overall quality of his service below that meriting either an honorable or a general discharge under honorable conditions. 7. Based on the available evidence, there does not appear to be a basis for reinstating him on active duty in the rank of SSG, transferring him to a WTU, referring him into the IDES, or upgrading the character of his service. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150008132 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150008132 16 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2