IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 June 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140006270 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. 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 general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, within six months upon returning from deployment he attempted suicide. He states, he sought help numerous times from his chain of command and was told he was “faking it.” He states, after his failed suicide attempt, he was provided with the medical care he needed and diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). He was removed from his position as a team leader and continuously harassed from select members of his chain of command. He states, he was an honorable Soldier and he earned numerous awards and achievements. He believes he should have received an honorable discharge based on his overall performance. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 7 April 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 25 May 2011 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: C Company, 1st Battalion, 501st Infantry (Airborne), Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, AK f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 28 May 2008/5 years, 19 weeks g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 11 months, 28 days h. Total Service: 3 years, 2 months, 17 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: DEP, 080310-080527, NA k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 11B10, Infantryman m. GT Score: 102 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: SWA p. Combat Service: Afghanistan (090310-100308) q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM, ACM-CS, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATO MDL, CIB r. Administrative Separation Board: NA s. Performance Ratings: NA t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 May 2008, for a period of 5 years and 19 weeks. He was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He served in Afghanistan and earned an ARCOM and AAM. He completed 3 years, 2 months, and 17 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, AK. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. On 4 April 2011, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, misconduct (serious offense), specifically for wrongfully and willingly discharging a firearm under circumstances such as to endanger the life of his spouse. 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights. 3. On 5 April 2011, 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. 4. On 25 April 2011, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 5. The applicant was separated on 25 May 2011, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKQ, and an RE code of 3. 6. The applicant’s record contains no evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. State of Alaska Indictment Document, dated 16 March 2011, reflects on 10 October 2010 the applicant was charged with recklessly causing serious physical injury to Ms. D by means of a dangerous instrument, a firearm and knowingly discharging a firearm at or in the direction of a dwelling. 2. Three negative counseling statements, dated 4 November 2010, 17 November 2010, and 6 December 2010, for a lack of motivation and discharging a firearm. 3. Several Anchorage Police Department Reports, dated 10 October 2010 and 11 October 2010, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation for misconduct (recklessly firing a weapon), aggravated assault, and for a disturbance call. 4. MEDCOM FORM 4038 (Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation), dated 8 December 2010, reflects the applicant had clear and normal thought process and content, was mentally responsible and a diagnosis of depression which existed prior to his service. The evaluation determined the applicant did qualify for a Chapter 5-17 for existing psychiatric condition and could be considered as an option. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 4 April 2014, a DD Form 214, a self-authored statement, four statements of support, Permanent Orders 360-036, dated 26 December 2009, a Enlisted Record Brief, dated 25 May 2011, ARCOM Certificate, dated 11 November 2009, and two DA Forms 638, dated 7 November 2009 and 4 January 2010. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant did not provide any in support of his 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 the applicant’s record of service, his military records, the documents and the issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. 2. The record confirms that 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 his misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by three negative counseling statements and charges of recklessly causing serious physical injury and knowingly discharging a firearm at or in the direction of a dwelling. 3. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance. 4. The applicant contends he was diagnosed with PTSD. The service record contains no evidence of a PTSD diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. However, the evidence of record indicates he was diagnosed with depression which existed prior to his service. 5. The applicant further contends he was continuously harassed by select members of his chain of command; however, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge. 6. The applicant contends he should have been honorably discharged based on his overall performance. The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge as shown by the repeated incidents of misconduct or by the multiple negative counseling statements received. 7. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 8. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 19 June 2015 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? NA Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Board Vote: Character Change: 0 No Change: 5 Reason Change: 0 No Change: 5 (Board member names available upon request) Board Action Directed: Issue a new DD Form 214: No Change Characterization to: No Change Change Reason to: No Change Change Authority for Separation: NA Change RE Code to: NA Grade Restoration to: 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) AR20140006270 Page 2 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1