SAMR-RB 28 August 2017 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 AR20160000278 1. Reference the attached Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings, dated 6 July 2017, in which the Board members unanimously recommended relief of the applicant's request. 2. I have reviewed the findings, conclusions, and Board member recommendations. I find there is not sufficient evidence to grant relief. Therefore, under the authority of Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, I have determined that the facts do not support upgrading the applicant's discharge. BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: Encl Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) BOARD DATE: 6 July 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000278 BOARD VOTE: ____x_____ ___x____ ____x____ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 6 July 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000278 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant amendment of the ABCMR's decision in Docket Number AR20080018090, dated 19 February 2009. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by voiding his current DD Form 214 and issuing him a new DD Form 214 showing his character of service as general under honorable conditions. ______________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: 6 July 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000278 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 reconsideration his earlier request to upgrade his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC). 2. The applicant states: a. He was discharged from the Army while an inpatient in the psychiatric unit of the 5th Army Hospital in Stuttgart, Germany. He was taking psychotropic medicines at the time. b. He also believes his post-service behavior and conduct also support upgrading his discharge. 3. The applicant provides a self-authored statement; character references from eight individuals, including his former wife; and a current medication reconciliation statement from his medical doctor. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20080018090 on 19 February 2009. 2. The applicant's contention that his discharge should be upgraded or changed because he was taking psychotropic drugs at the time of his discharge is a new argument that warrants consideration at this time. 3. The previous Record of Proceedings shows: a. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 May 1984. He completed training and progressed normally to pay grade E-4. b. He received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), in August 1986 for using marijuana and in June 1987 for twice being absent from his place of duty. c. On 7 April 1988 court-martial charges were preferred against him for: * possession of amphetamine * possession of drug paraphernalia (only one specification but three separate items) * possession of prohibited weapons (only one specification but three separate items) * making a false official statement * failure to pay a just debt d. He was admitted to the hospital and diagnosed with an anxiety disorder with depressed mood due to the pending court-martial charges. e. The applicant requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. He was properly counseled, advised, and processed. He was discharged UOTHC on 4 May 1988. He completed 3 years, 11 months, and 10 days of creditable service with no lost time. f. On 13 June 2003, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge. 4. In support of this request for reconsideration, the applicant submitted several character witness type letters from various individuals in addition to his own personal statement. All the letters seem very personal and all the writers appear aware that they are supporting his request to upgrade an unfavorable discharge. These include: a. The applicant's personal statement in which he repeated his assertions about being out-processed from a mental health facility while taking psychotropic drugs. He also states, "I admit to making bad choices. I blame no one but myself…The military was the best experience I've ever had…I've advised several young men and women (some who serve now) to join. I had to be honest with them about myself so they could stay clear of the wrong people and not…make the mistakes I did…." b. The pastor of his church relates that he has known the applicant for 40 years. He has been impressed with his faithfulness and productivity as a member. The applicant serves in several different entities within the church and has written dramas for the youth group. He accepts invitations to speak at other churches. He is a man of great integrity and moral character. He respects and appreciates others. c. A fellow church member relates similar facts and states the applicant is "always ready with an extra pair of hands and a smile on his face to help anyone…[The applicant] is 'Other centered' and not 'Self-centered.'" d. An acquaintance of many years also describes the applicant's church activities, but he admires the applicant for his care for and dedication to his mother's welfare. e. An acquaintance of approximately 37 years describes the applicant as a person of great integrity. He is a highly regarded family friend. He is concerned about the welfare of others and offers assistance. He is compassionate and a positive influence on others. He strives to better himself. He is a hardworking and highly respected member of the community. f. The applicant's mother states he has been a very disciplined person since his discharge. He takes care of her and helps others in the neighborhood. She believes this behavior stems from his military training. g. A neighbor of his mother states the applicant has cared for his mother and also helped her and many other neighbors. He checks on them frequently. h. The applicant's former wife writes, "I was [the applicant's] wife while he was in Germany…Because of a mistake I made while he was in Germany, we got divorced. I got pregnant for [sic] a Soldier at Fort Hood…I realize now that after our daughter and I got to Germany [the applicant] was crushed. This probably had some affect [sic] on his performance but [the applicant] remains patriotic. We are now very good friends and communicate often. [The applicant] visits and spends time with me and our grandchildren. I've seen [the applicant] cry on Memorial Day because he still feels connected to the military. We all make mistakes in life. [The applicant] has verbally forgiven me for my own. Please grant [the applicant] an honorable discharge because he is a better man than any other that I've known." 5. The medication reconciliation statement the applicant submitted shows he is currently taking citalopram hydrobromide for depression and quetiapine fumarate for "mood swings, sleep, voices." (According to Medline Plus, an online medical information service provided by the National Institutes of Health, quetiapine is an anti-psychotic drug used as a treatment of last resort for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety, depression, insomnia, and post-traumatic stress disorder.) 6. During the processing of this request for reconsideration, the applicant was requested to submit any medical records he had or could obtain that would help substantiate his case. He was given 90 days to do so; however, he did not respond. 7. A medical advisory opinion was obtained from the Army Review Boards Agency Medical Advisor. A medical doctor certified in psychiatry reviewed all the available evidence and found no indication that the applicant failed to meet medical retention standards. 8. A copy of the medical advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for rebuttal or comment. He did not respond. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. 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. b. 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. c. Paragraph 3-7c describes the justification for issuance of a discharge UOTHC as a significant departure from the conduct expected of a Soldier. d. 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. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate. 2. Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, provides for disability retirement or separation for a member who is physically unfit to perform the duties of his office, rank, grade, or rating because of disability incurred while entitled to basic pay. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant's contention that his discharge should be upgraded because he was taking psychotropic drugs at the time of his discharge was carefully considered. 2. The applicant was hospitalized and diagnosed with anxiety disorder and depressed mood due to the pending court-martial charges. There is no evidence showing the applicant entered the disability evaluation process. His unit commander and his medical treatment facility commander did not refer him to a medical evaluation board. Without referral to a medical evaluation board, there is a presumption that the applicant was able to perform the military duties of his rank/grade. 3. There is no available evidence to show the applicant was unable to perform his duties. The applicant did not provide evidence to support his implied argument that he was incapable of making an informed and rational decision. 4. He did not respond to the medical advisory opinion that found no substantiation for his claims. 5. The applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, to avoid trial by court-martial was both voluntary and administratively correct. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 6. However, the applicant had served approximately 3 years and 10 months before the court-martial charges were preferred; previously he had received only two NJPs for relatively minor offenses. 7. Experience has shown that, had the applicant not requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, the command would have likely reversed course and offered him a general discharge. 8. The authors of his supporting letters clearly hold the applicant in high regard. It is also noted that the writers were all aware that they were supporting a request to upgrade a bad discharge and not just providing a routine character reference. This is unusual. 9. It is rather remarkable that a mother thinks her son came home from the Army a better person even though he received a bad discharge. It's also remarkable that his former wife accepts responsibility for his "losing it." 10. Finally, the medication reconciliation statement indicates that the applicant still has mental health issues and suggests that, notwithstanding the medial advisory opinion, these issues may have been more serious than was perceived at the time of his discharge. 11. While post-service considerations are normally insufficient as the sole basis for relief they provide significant mitigation in this case. 12. Taken together, the length and overall quality of his service and the above post-service considerations suggest that the characterization of his service as having been UOTHC is unduly harsh. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160000278 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160000278 6 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2