BOARD DATE: 24 April 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160005984 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. 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: 24 April 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160005984 BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : 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: 24 April 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160005984 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 the upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. 2. The applicant states he was going through personal issues because his close friend passed away in 1987 on the applicant's birthday. He did not know how to deal with it, so he turned to alcohol and this led to his downfall. He no longer drinks alcohol. 3. The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 25 January 1989 and two letters of support. 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 30 December 1986. He held military occupational specialty 63B (Light Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic). 3. On 23 October 1987, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for two specifications of dereliction of duty by failing to turn in vehicle keys and failing to follow alert procedures by going back to sleep instead of reporting to his place of duty. An additional charge of being disrespectful in language and deportment toward a noncommissioned officer was lined out. 4. On 22 March 1988, he again accepted NJP for unlawfully striking a fellow enlisted Soldier in the face with his fists. His punishment included reduction to private (PV1)/E-1. 5. The applicant was tried and, consistent with his pleas, was convicted by a summary court-martial for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed, being drunk and disorderly, and breaking restriction. The sentence was adjudged on 25 August 1988, and punishment consisted of 30 days confinement. The court-martial convening authority approved the findings and sentence on 2 September 1988; he was sent to the U.S. Army Personnel Control Facility at Fort Knox, KY, to serve his sentence. 6. He was released from confinement on 16 September 1988 and apparently remained at Fort Knox. 7. The complete facts and circumstances regarding his separation are not available for review. However, his available service record contains a DD Form 214, as corrected by a DD Form 215 (Correction of DD Form 214), showing he completed 2 years and 5 days of net active creditable service, with lost time from 25 August to 15 September 1988 (consistent with his period of confinement). In addition, his DD Form 214 shows: a. He was separated at Fort Knox; his rank/grade was PV1/E-1 and his date of rank was listed as 22 March 1988. b. He was awarded or authorized the Army Service Ribbon and the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16). c. Under the heading, "Special Additional Information" it states: * separation authority was Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b (A Pattern of Misconduct) * narrative reason for separation was misconduct – pattern of misconduct 8. There is no indication the applicant applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 9. The applicant provides two letters of support from two supervisors. Both indicated the applicant has been a good friend and an excellent employee. They lauded him for being hardworking and someone who always volunteers to difficult assignments. Both contended, in effect, the applicant's character of service should be upgraded because of his excellent post-service conduct. 10. On 15 March 2018, the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) psychiatrist provided an advisory opinion. a. The Case Management Division (CMD) requested the ARBA psychiatrist review the applicant's case to assess whether there were medical conditions that warranted separation through medical channels or if any alleged medical conditions were considered during separation processing. b. The ARBA psychiatrist found: * the applicant's record did not reasonably support the presence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or other behavioral health (BH) condition, such that referral into the Army's disability evaluation system (DES) would have been warranted * while no BH conditions were noted, his available medical records identified eleven physical conditions (some of which existed prior to entry on active duty); the applicant met medical retention standards during his active military service with regard to those conditions * there was no indication a BH condition was present at the time he committed the misconduct that led to his adverse separation; nor was there an indication any BH conditions would have mitigated his misconduct * his medical conditions were considered during separation processing c. Based on the review of available documentation, the ARBA psychiatrist found no evidence of a medical disability or condition that would support changing either the applicant's character of service or the reason for discharge. In addition, there were no medical or administrative sources that indicated the applicant's misconduct corresponded to the death of the applicant's friend. 11. On 22 March 2018, CMD, ARBA provided the applicant a copy of the advisory opinion for review and comment. He did not submit a response. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, in effect at the time, states members are subject to separation under this provision when they have a pattern of misconduct involving: * acts of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities * conduct which is prejudicial to good order and discipline 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. 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. 3. On 25 August 2017, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to DRBs and BCM/NRs when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharges due in whole, or in part, to: mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; sexual harassment. Boards were directed to give liberal consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on those conditions or experiences. The guidance further describes evidence sources and criteria, and requires Boards to consider the conditions or experiences presented in evidence as potential mitigation for that misconduct which led to the discharge. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant's discharge packet is not available for review. Nonetheless, his available service record includes his DD Form 214. Despite the absence of his separation documentation, neither the record, nor the evidence submitted by the applicant, appear to suggest that his separation was not properly and equitably processed, or that it was not executed in accordance with the Army regulations that were in effect at the time. The character of service is commensurate with this type of separation (i.e., for a pattern of misconduct). 2. The applicant, in effect, asserted he suffered from a behavioral health condition as a result of the loss of his friend on the applicant's birthday. He claimed the loss caused him to abuse alcohol, which, in turn, led to his adverse discharge. This Board is to give liberal consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on mental health conditions. a. The ARBA psychiatrist conducted a review of his available records and found there was no indication a BH condition was present at the time he committed the misconduct that led to his adverse separation; nor was there an indication any BH conditions would have mitigated his misconduct b. The ARBA psychiatrist further determined a change to the applicant's character of service or the reason for discharge was not supported by the evidence, nor were there any medical or administrative sources which indicated the applicant's misconduct corresponded to his friend's death. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160005984 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160005984 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2