BOARD DATE: 16 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002466 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: 16 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002466 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: 16 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002466 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, in effect: * evaluation by a physical evaluation board (PEB) for traumatic brain injury (TBI) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) * correction of his records to show he was separated/retired by reason of permanent disability on 26 April 2011 vice discharged for misconduct * all past pay and Tricare benefits due as a result of the PEB rating determination * a personal hearing 2. The applicant states he was discharged at Fort Campbell, KY, with TBI and PTSD. The Warrior Transition Unit (WTU) delayed his medical evaluation processing until they had a reason to discharge him. [Granting his request] is the right thing to do as the medical evaluation board (MEB) paperwork stated he was not retainable. 3. The applicant provides: * 23 pages of medical records dated between 3 February to 23 August 2009 * neuropsychological/behavior health (BH) evaluations dated between 6 to 24 July 2009 * MEB dated 3 August 2010 * self-authored statement, dated 28 September 2010 * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision dated 1 March 2013 * an email, undated 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. Having had prior service in the Army National Guard, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 May 2005 and he held military occupational specialty (MOS) 88M (Motor Transport Operator). 3. On 28 July 2006, he was assigned to the 575th Combat Support (CS) Company, Fort Hood, TX. He served in Kuwait with his assigned unit from 11 October to 13 December 2006. 4. On 18 October 2007, he was assigned to the 426th CS Battalion, Fort Campbell, KY. He served in Iraq with his assigned unit from 12 November 2007 to 11 November 2008. 5. On 8 September 2009, he was assigned to the WTU, Fort Campbell, for processing through the joint Department of Defense (DOD)-VA Physical Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES). 6. On 16 November 2009, he underwent a VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) examination. In conjunction with this examination, a military medical doctor prepared a DD Form 2808 (Report of Medical Examination) showing he was given a permanent profile of "3" in the upper extremities and psychiatric categories of the PULHES, his PULHES was 1-3-1-1-1-3. Further, it was determined that he was not qualified for further service. The military examining physician noted, in part, the following complaints/conditions as dictated by VA medical doctors: * bilateral shoulder condition started in 2008 as the result of an injury while in Iraq; symptoms included constant pain, stiffness, and decreased mobility * cervical spine condition started in 2008 as a result of an injury while in Iraq, symptoms included limited mobility pain * thoracic and lumbar spine condition started in 2006 as the result of a fall; symptoms included pain * pelvic pain since 2006 as the result of an injury from a fall; symptoms included pain * tinea versicolor, back and arms; no specific symptoms for this condition were listed or noted * sleep apnea since 2009; symptoms included difficulty breathing at nighttime * bilateral knee condition started in 2008, not related to an accident; symptoms included pain * right ankle condition started in 2007; symptoms included swelling and pain * daily headaches, will refer to the condition below * post TBI, referred for VA C&P TBI examination * hypertension started in 2008; currently not taking medication and no specific symptoms noted * bilateral tibial stress fractures, onset unknown; symptoms included pain and tenderness bilateral lower legs * bilateral hearing loss an tinnitus; referred for VA C&P audiology * anxiety/depression/insomnia; referred for VA C&P mental health examination * left hand condition started in 2008 related to a fall; symptoms included swelling and pain 7. He was reported as absent without leave (AWOL) from his assigned unit from 11 to 14 June 2010. 8. On 14 June 2010, he was counseled by the company commander for being AWOL. His commander stated, in part, as a result of his AWOL status, he was recommending him for a field grade Article 15. His actions may result in initiation of separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations). If he was involuntarily separated, he could receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge or an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. 9. In an MEB Narrative Summary (NARSUM), dated 12 June 2010, Dr. RMT, the MEB physician, stated, in part: a. The applicant's conditions were: * left shoulder rotator cuff tear * right shoulder mild degeneration of the acromioclavicular joint * cervical vertebrae degeneration * multiple psychiatric disorders - anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, alcohol dependence, cognitive disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) * lumbar vertebrae degeneration b. He was hospitalized in February 2009 at the Cumberland Hall Psychiatric Center for alcohol and drug abuse and on March 2009 had left shoulder surgery. c. He was diagnosed with the medically unacceptable conditions under the provisions of AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3, that had not existed prior to service (EPTS), of left shoulder range of motion following labral tear repair, right shoulder mild degeneration of the acromioclavicular joint, bulging cervical disks C3-C7, and mild lumbar degenerative disk disease. d. He was diagnosed with chronic major depressive disorder, as evidenced by recurrent instability of mood, depressed mood with anxiety and guilt, decreased attention and concentration, impairments in sleep, suicidal thoughts, and agitated behaviors that were EPTS and then exacerbated by military service, and was in the line of duty. Based on this diagnosis, the applicant did not meet the medical retention standards under the provisions of AR 40-501, chapter 3. 10. On 12 July 2010, he was arrested in Clarksville, TN, for driving under the influence (DUI) and speeding. 11. On 23 July 2010, he received an administrative letter of reprimand from Colonel (COL) DJC. COL DJC stated, in part: a. He was hereby reprimanding the applicant for driving a motor vehicle on 12 July 2010 in TN with a blood alcohol content of .143. It was totally unacceptable for him as an Army Soldier to act in such an irresponsible manner. b. He ignored the tragic consequences of drinking and driving, and recklessly endangered lives in the military and civilian communities. The reprimand was designed to teach him a valuable lesson and improve his judgment. This was an administrative action and not punishment under the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 12. In an MEB Narrative Summary (NARSUM), dated 3 August 2010, Dr. BL, the MEB psychiatrist, stated, in part: a. The applicant's diagnoses were: * major depressive disorder, chronic, as evidenced by recurrent instability of mood, depressed mood, with anxiety and guilt; based on this diagnosis, he does not meet the retention standards under the provisions of AR 40-501, chapter 3 * alcohol dependence, recurrent public intoxication, self-destructive and suicidal behavior when intoxicated; EPTS – no, exacerbated by military service – no ; medically acceptable * cognitive disorder, not otherwise specified (NOS), with deficits in delayed memory, multitasking, and language not related to postconcussive injury; EPTS, exacerbated by military service – no; medically acceptable * ADHD, inattentive type, as demonstrated by neuropsychological testing; medically acceptable * personality disorder, borderline type, as evidence by severe instability of affect, severe abandonment fears, high level of dependency and manipulative behaviors and cognitive distortions; medically acceptable * obstructive sleep apnea; medically acceptable * chronic problems with social adaption and industrial functioning; medically acceptable * severe problems in multiple domains of functioning; medically acceptable b. The applicant did not meet the criteria for PTSD due to the absence of true combat experience or direct experience in the death of others or the threat of death of self. There were repeated presentations and notations on the record of this diagnosis, however there was no evidence of exposure to life-threatening events to self or others which would be a primary necessity for PTSD diagnoses. Neuropsychological testing suggested significant EPTS cognitive impairment to include ADHD, language, and intelligence deficiencies as significant contributing factors. In addition, there was a noted history of depression and anxiety EPTS. At this time, it could not be concluded that these impairments resulted from TBI, and in fact, there was no evidence in the record of significant concussive events which would be consistent with this level of impairment. c. At this time, the applicant was found to be medically competent for pay purposes and capable of understanding the nature and cooperating with the PEB. The applicant remained hospitalized and should be considered a danger to himself. The applicant did not meet the criteria for medical retention due to standards defined in AR 40-501. 13. On 23 August 2010, the applicant underwent a command-directed BH evaluation. The Medical Command (MEDCOM) Form 4038 (Report of BH Evaluation), dated 23 August 2010, shows Mr. JB, a licensed clinical social worker, found: a. The applicant's behavior was normal, he was fully alert and oriented, his mood and affect were unremarkable, thinking process was clear, thought content was normal, and his memory was good. It was his opinion the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings, was mentally responsible, and met the retention requirements of AR 40-501, chapter 3. b. The applicant's diagnosis were major depression, single episode, in partial remission; polysubstance dependence; personality disorder NOS; and multiple physical problems. He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command. He met the psychiatric criteria for administrative separation in accordance with AR 635-200, paragraph 5-13 (Personality Disorder) or paragraph 5-17 (Other Designated Physical or Mental Conditions). 14. On 23 August 2010, his immediate commander notified him that he was initiating separation action against him under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, commission of a serious offense. a. The commander stated the reasons for his proposed actions were that on 9 June 2010 he went AWOL when he was notified that he was selected as a participant in the unit's weekly urinalysis and remained AWOL until 14 June 2010. On 12 July 2010, he was arrested for DUI and it was also alleged he left his minor child unattended at home while he went out drinking. b. He was recommending he receive a UOTHC characterization of service. However, the separation authority would make the final decision in his case. 15. On 23 August 2010, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander's notification. On 23 August 2010, he consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, the type of discharge he could receive, and the procedures and rights available to him. He acknowledged he understood that he was entitled to have his case heard by an administrative separation board as he had over 6 years of service and was being considered for an UOTHC discharge. He requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, a personal appearance before the board, and representation by military counsel. He declined to submit a statement on his own behalf. 16. On 26 August 2010, an MEB convened and, after consideration of clinical records, laboratory findings, and physical examination, found: a. The applicant had been diagnosed with the following conditions that were medically unacceptable under the provisions of AR 40-501, chapter 3: * left shoulder, lost range of motion following labral tear repair * right shoulder, mild degeneration of the acromioclavicular joint * bulging cervical disks, C3-C7 * major depressive disorder * mild lumbar degenerative disk disease b. The following conditions were medically acceptable: * alcohol dependence * cognitive disorder * ADHD * obstructive sleep apnea * hypertension c. The MEB recommended referral to a PEB. 17. On 27 August 2010, his intermediate and senior commanders recommended approval of the separation action under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, with a UOTHC characterization of service. 18. The DA Form 3947 (MEB Proceedings) shows that on 22 September 2010, the applicant concurred with the MEB findings and recommendations. On 25 September 2010, the approving authority, COL MAM, approved the MEB findings and recommendation. 19. On or about 5 March 2011, the applicant was again arrested by civilian authorities for DUI. On 5 March 2011, his status was changed from present for duty to confinement by civil authorities (CCA). 20. On 15 March 2011, the applicant was notified that a board would convene on 29 March 2011 to determine if he should be recommended for elimination under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 14. He was advised, in part, that he had the right to appear in person, with or without by counsel and if he was CCA the board could still proceed with counsel representing him. He refused to sign the notification. 21. In a memorandum for record, dated 16 March 2011, his immediate commander stated the unit attempted to serve the applicant a revised chapter 14 packet which included his most recent pending charges of DUI, implied consent, and drug paraphernalia but the Soldier refused to sign acknowledging the new packet. On 15 March 2011, a unit representative was sent to Montgomery County Jail, TN, and verbally informed the applicant of the unit's intent to include the new charges in the pending separation board. 22. On 5 April 2011, an administrative separation board convened to determine if the applicant should be separated from the Army. The applicant was still incarcerated and was not present at the board. He was represented by counsel and his counsel presented into evidence the applicant's supporting documents and completed MEB. The DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by Investigation Officer/Board of Officers), dated 5 April 2011, shows: a. The board found the preponderance of evidence did support the allegation that the applicant was AWOL from 9 to 14 June 2010; did support the allegation that on 12 July 2010 the applicant operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol; and did support the allegation that on 12 July 2010 the applicant left his minor child unattended. b. The findings did warrant separation of the applicant and the board recommended the applicant be separated from the Army with an under honorable conditions (general) characterization of service. 23. On 13 April 2011, the applicant's duty status was changed from CCA to present for duty. 24. In a memorandum, dated 20 April 2011, subject: Discharge versus Disability Processing for [Applicant], the approving authority, Brigadier General (BG) JNC, Fort Campbell Installation Commander, stated: a. He had reviewed the chapter 14, separation [board] summary of proceedings, and the MEB concerning the applicant and determined the applicant's medical condition was not the direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct that led to the recommendation for administrative separation and other circumstances of the applicant's case did not warrant disability processing instead of further processing for administrative separation. b. He directed the applicant be separated under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for commission of a serious defense with an under honorable conditions (general) characterization of service. On 26 April 2011, he was discharged accordingly. 25. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct (serious offense) with an under honorable conditions (general) characterization of service. 26. The medical/BH records and VA Rating decision the applicant provided were forwarded to the Office of The Surgeon General (OTSG) for review. 27. In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was received on 23 September 2016 from the BH Division, OTSG. The advisory official opined: a. The applicant entered active duty on 1 November 2006 (i.e., 18 May 2005) and was discharged on 26 April 2011 under honorable conditions (general), under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct. He was deployed to Kuwait for 2 months in 2006 and to Iraq for 1 year from 2007 to 2008. His misconduct included driving while intoxicated with his minor child in the vehicle. b. The applicant requested a medical retirement based on PTSD and TBI. The OTSG was asked to determine if the applicant is eligible for an MEB and if PTSD or TBI was a factor in his discharge. This opinion is based on the information provided by the Board and records available in the DOD electronic medical record (AHLTA). c. The applicant first sought BH treatment in February 2008 while deployed to Iraq to address problems with his command. He was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with anxious and depressed mood. His functional status was described as "able to perform unstressful work." In February 2009, alcohol dependence was added to his diagnoses and he attended an inpatient rehabilitation program, following up with an intensive outpatient program when he returned to Fort Campbell. He entered the WTU in September 2009 and in November 2009 was diagnosed with PTSD. He retained this diagnosis in WTU records until his separation. d. A mental status evaluation conducted on 23 August 2010 documented an Axis I diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD), single episode, in partial remission, and polysubstance dependence, and an Axis II diagnosis of personality disorder, NOS. He was described as having moderate potential for self-harm, harm to others, and going AWOL. He was also noted to exhibit recurrent substance abuse, erratic moods, and impulsive behavior. The evaluator determined that he met medical retention standards and was cleared for administrative separation. e. The psychiatric component of the applicant's MEB included diagnoses of MDD, chronic; alcohol dependence; cognitive disorder, NOS; and ADHD, inattentive type. On 1 March 2013, the VA granted the applicant a service-connected disability rating for TBI with amnestic and cognitive disorders, with a disability rating of 40 percent effective 27 April 2011. f. The applicant attests that the WTU delayed his MEB processing "until they had a reason to discharge me." There is no question that he met criteria for MDD, a boardable condition, at the time of his separation as confirmed by the psychiatric addendum to the NARSUM prepared for the MEB. Thus, it appears as though TBI and BH conditions were considered by the MEB during his discharge. What is unclear is how the chapter 14 discharge was adjudicated with the MEB findings. 28. In a response to the advisory opinion, dated 28 October 2016, the applicant stated: a. One day he was taken to COL DJC's office by Staff Sergeant (SSG) B. COL DJC asked him if he thought that he (COL DJC) believed that all his injuries happened during his last tour because he did not. COL DJC was angry and told him to get out. b. His son was not in the car when he got the DUI; his roommate was watching him and the child neglect charges were later dropped. His squad leader took the stand in the Montgomery County Court and divulged his medical and mental health issues and said all that with the command's approval to do so in order to keep him held in jail. He also said he was a danger to the public. c. He was given false counseling numerous times. For example, he called his squad leader to let him know of his legal appointment and 2 days later he was given counseling. Then they had him report to the commander and he could hardly talk because he was so nervous. He went AWOL, but how it was written up was completely false. He could not take the abuse and left. d. Finally, on 2 August 2010, he attempted suicide because he knew the command was out to destroy him by any means. His command doctored and built up his chapter packet so they could kick him out of the Army without a PEB. REFERENCES: 1. AR 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 14 establishes policy and procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories included minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities, and AWOL. A discharge UOTHC was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such was merited by the Soldier's overall record. b. Paragraph 1-33b states when the medical treatment facility (MTF) commander or attending medical officer determines that a Soldier being processed for administrative separation under chapters 7 or 14 does not meet the medical fitness standards for retention, he/she will refer the Soldier to an MEB. The administrative separation proceedings will continue, but final action by the separation authority will not be taken, pending the results of the MEB. c. If the MEB findings indicate that referral of the case to a PEB is warranted for disability processing, the MTF commander will furnish copies of the approved MEB proceedings to the Soldier’s General Court-Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA) and unit commander. The commander exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the Soldier may abate the administrative separation. This authority may not be delegated. A case file may be referred in this way if the GCMCA finds the disability is the cause, or a substantial contributing cause, of the misconduct that might result in a discharge UOTHC, or other circumstances warrant disability processing instead of alternate administrative separation. d. Paragraph 3-7a states 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. e. Paragraph 3-7b states 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. AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Army physical disability evaluation system (PDES) and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. a. Paragraph 3-1 contains guidance on the standards of unfitness because of physical disability. It states, in pertinent part, that the mere presence of impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability. In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier reasonably may be expected to perform because of their office, grade, rank, or rating. If a Soldier is found unfit because of physical disability, this regulation provides for disposition of the Soldier according to applicable laws and regulations. Once an MEB determines the Soldier fails medical retention standards, the Soldier is referred to a PEB. b. Only the unfitting conditions or defects and those which contribute to unfitness will be considered in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity warranting retirement or separation for disability. The mere presence of impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability. 3. PTSD can occur after someone goes through a traumatic event like combat, assault, or disaster. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (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. From an 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." 4. 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 that he or she has been exposed to an event that is considered traumatic. Clinical experience with the PTSD diagnosis has shown, however, 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. 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. 5. The DSM fifth revision (DSM-5) was released in May 2013. This revision includes 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. 6. AR 15-185 (ABCMR) states the ABCMR decides cases on the evidence of record. It is not an investigative body. 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 ABCMR. Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the ABCMR or by the Director of the ABCMR. In this case, the evidence of record and the evidence the applicant provided is sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision at this time. 2. The applicant contends he should be evaluated by a PEB for TBI and PTSD and should have been separated/retired by reason of permanent disability vice discharged for misconduct. 3. As stated by the advisory official, the evidence of record confirms the applicant was being processed through the IDES and an MEB found he had several medically unacceptable conditions and recommended referral to a PEB. However, the evidence of record also confirms the applicant went AWOL and was arrested by civil authorities for DUI. Accordingly, his immediate commander initiated separation action against him under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct – commission of a serious offense. In addition, the applicant was subsequently arrested by civil authorities for a second DUI and faced additional charges. 4. Governing regulations do not preclude separation for misconduct while a service member is being processed through the DES. In his capacity as the GCMCA and prior to making a decision, BG JNC reviewed the proceedings from both the MEB and the administrative separation board. BG JNC determined that the applicant’s medical condition was not a direct or substantial cause of his misconduct, did not warrant disability processing, and approved his administrative separation. As such, he was not entitled to further processing through the PDES. The decision to discharge him for misconduct instead of allowing his disability evaluation to continue was within the BG JNC's authority under the governing regulation. The advisory official in this case stated it was unclear how the administrative separation proceedings were adjudicated with the MEB findings. 5. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the applicant's rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. Other than the applicant's own statements, there is no evidence of irregularity in the handling of his case. 6. With respect to any past pay and benefits, absent a reason to change the reason and authority for discharge he is not due past pay or benefits at this time. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160002466 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160002466 14 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2