IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 September 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140002413 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and notwithstanding the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length and quality of service to include his combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e., his testimony and the ambiguity of his mental health treatment), mitigated the discrediting entries in the service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. The Board further determined the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it. Presiding Officer I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Department of the Army Discharge Review Board in this case. THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND STATEMENT: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge characterization from general, under honorable conditions to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he needs his GI Bill benefits so he can improve the quality of his life, become more productive and have a positive impact on society. He was young and taking 12 different many medications in order to deal with his TBI and PTSD. He has learned from his mistakes and was separated for minor infractions. He was a few months shy of being medically discharged and completing his enlistment. He was chaptered for being late for formations and having a shotgun in the back of his car. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 30 January 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 3 February 2012 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE: Misconduct (Serious Offense), Chapter 14, Paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: D Co, 1/327th Inf Regt, Fort Campbell, KY f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 14 January 2009, 3 years, 19 weeks g. Current Enlistment Service: 3 years, 20 days h. Total Service: 3 years, 20 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 11C10, Indirect Fire Infantryman m. GT Score: 110 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: SWA p. Combat Service: Afghanistan (100428-110501) q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM-2, NDSM, ACM-w/CS, GWOTSM ASR, OSR, NATO MDL, CIB r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: None t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: Yes SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 January 2009, for a period of 3 years and 19 weeks. He was 19 years old at the time and a high school graduate. When his discharge proceedings were initiated he was serving at the Fort Campbell, KY. He served for 3 years and 20 days. His record shows he was awarded an ARCOM, two AAMs, CIB, and served a combat tour in Afghanistan. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. On 12 January 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to process him for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense for receiving a FG Article 15 (110915) for failing to report and willfully disobeying a noncommissioned officer; and for bringing a shotgun with ammunition in his POV on a military installation (111107). 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and informed the applicant of his rights. 3. On 18 January 2012, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval of the separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 4. On 27 January 2012, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 5. The applicant was separated on 3 February 2012, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c Misconduct (Serious Offense), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKQ and an RE code of 3. 6. The applicant’s record does not show any time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. FG Article 15, dated 23 August 2011, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (110718) and disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer. The punishment imposed consisted of a reduction to E-1 (suspended); forfeiture of $733.00 pay for one month (suspended); extra duty for 45 days; and restriction for 45 days. 2. Numerous negative counseling statements covering the period 31 January 2011 through 18 November 2011, for drinking alcohol while taking medication, bringing a shotgun on a military installation, substandard performance, substandard appearance (needing a haircut), threatening to go AWOL, late for formation, failing to go to sick-call, indebtedness, and leaving his place of duty. 3. A sworn statement, dated 18 November 2011, referencing the applicant stating he was going AWOL. 4. A Mental Status Evaluation, dated 2 December 2011, diagnosing the applicant with PTSD. It was noted that the applicant was being treated, declined medical service at the time of the evaluation, and was psychiatrically cleared for chapter action per his command. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: A DD Form 293, DD Form 214, a self-authored statement, and a DD Form 149. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: None were provided with the application. REGULATORY AUTHORITY 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted. 2. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides 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. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual. 3. Army Regulation 635-200, 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. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered. However, after examining his military records and the issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. 2. The applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By the repeated incidents of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s service was marred by an Article 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and several negative counseling statements. 3. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance. 4. The applicant contends he was in the middle of a medical discharge at the time for PTSD. The applicant contends he was taking 12 different medications in order to deal with his TBI and PTSD. The applicant’s service record contains documentation that supports a diagnosis of in service PTSD; however, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The record shows that on 2 December 2011, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong. It appears the applicant’s chain of command determined that although he was suffering from PTSD, he knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation. Further, there are many Soldiers with the same condition that completed their service successfully. 5. Furthermore, it was noted that the applicant was being treated for PTSD, declined further medical service at the time of the evaluation, and was psychiatrically cleared for chapter actions. 6. The applicant contends that he was young and immature at the time of the discharge. The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. 7. The applicant contends he needs his GI Bill benefits so he can improve the quality of his life, become more productive and have a positive impact on society. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Further, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 8. The record contains no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the applicant’s command, all requirements of law and regulation were met, and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. 9. Records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 10. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief. BOARD DETERMINATION AND DIRECTED ACTION After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and notwithstanding the Discussion and Recommendation, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length and quality of service to include his combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e., his testimony and the ambiguity of his mental health treatment), mitigated the discrediting entries in the service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. The Board further determined the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Personal Appearance Date: 22 September. 2014 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: No DOCUMENTS/TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE 1. The applicant submitted no additional documents or issues for Board consideration. 2. In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional documents and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. Board Vote: Character Change: 5 No Change: 0 Reason Change: 0 No Change: 5 (Board member names available upon request) Board Action Directed: Issue a new DD Form 214: Yes Change Characterization to: Honorable Change Reason to: No Change Change RE Code to: NA Grade Restoration to: NA Change Authority for Separation: NA Other: NA Legend: AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record FG - Field Grade IADT – Initial Active Duty Training RE - Reentry AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NA - Not applicable SCM- Summary Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial CG - Company Grade Article 15 HD - Honorable Discharge OAD - Ordered to Active Duty UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge CID - Criminal investigation Department MP – Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont) AR20140002413 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1