IN THE CASE OF BOARD DATE: 9 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150013537 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 IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 9 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150013537 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 9 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150013537 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 his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded. 2. The applicant states his discharge should be upgraded because at the time of his discharge he was having high anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and he didn’t know how to cope. He has changed since his discharge. He is married, going to school, and living an honest life. 3. In support of his application the applicant cited "Waco Regional Office" but he did not provide any additional supporting documentation. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 November 2002. He held military occupational specialty 92F (Petroleum Supply Specialist). 2. His Enlisted Record Brief shows he served in Iraq from 17 August 2005 to 27 July 2006. He was awarded the National Defense Service Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal. The highest rank he attained was specialist/E-4. 3. On 6 October 2008, his immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 14-12(c) for commission of a serious offense. The commander stated the applicant had received nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being absent without leave for 50 days. Additionally, he had been counseled numerous times for failure to report to duty, failure to make medical appointments, and failing to follow orders. He had been arrested by the Fort Hood Criminal Investigation Command and in their investigation it was opined that he committed the offenses of forgery and fraud. The commander indicated he would recommend the applicant receive a UOTHC discharge. 4. The applicant consulted with counsel, waived his rights, and indicated a statement would not be submitted in his own behalf. 5. The applicant's chain of command recommended the applicant receive a UOTHC discharge. 6. The separation authority approved the separation and directed a UOTHC discharge. On 6 November 2008, the applicant was accordingly discharged. 7. On 1 September 2011, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. 8. His medical records are not available for review and there is no medical documentation showing he suffers from PTSD related to his military service. 9. On 26 August 2015, the Case Management Division, Army Review Boards Agency, sent a letter to the applicant requesting medical documents confirming his medical condition/diagnosis of PTSD. The applicant has failed to provide a response or any additional documentary evidence in support of his application. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 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 commission of a serious offense. A serious offense is one which warrants separation and for which the individual could receive a punitive discharge at a trial by court-martial. 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 states 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 states 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. As a result of the extensive research conducted by the medical community and the relatively recent issuance of revised criteria regarding the causes, diagnosis and treatment of PTSD the Department of Defense has acknowledged 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 also acknowledged that in some cases this undiagnosed condition of PTSD may have been a mitigating factor in the Soldier's misconduct which served as a catalyst for their discharge. Research has also shown 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 an extended period of time. 3. On 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant has not submitted documentation indicating he has received a diagnosis of PTSD or any related conditions, nor do the available service records contain such documentation. 2. The available records show his administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. There is no evidence of error in the characterization of service he received. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150013537 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150013537 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2