IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 26 June 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140008722 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length and quality of his service to include his combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge i.e., Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and as a result it is inequitable. It is concluded that the PTSD condition may have been a causative factor in the misconduct that led to the discharge. After carefully weighing that fact against the severity of the applicant’s misconduct, there is sufficient mitigating evidence to warrant upgrading the characterization of the applicant’s service to general, under honorable conditions accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. The Board determined the reason for discharge was 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge characterization of service to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, his discharge was inequitable because of the circumstances at the time of his separation. He contends at the time of his separation, he was displaying symptoms of PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder); however, he states he did not know his symptoms were related to PTSD. He states, his PTSD symptoms interfered with his decision to face continued service or to fully understand the repercussions of an under other than honorable discharge. His service up until his discharge had been exemplary and had the combat-related PTSD symptoms not been present he would have continued his service and received an honorable discharge. He states, his misconduct was an isolated incident. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 12 December 2014 b. Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 5 March 2007 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, AR 635-200, Chapter 10, KFS, RE-4 e. Unit of assignment: 1st Replacement Company, Fort Riley, KS f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 19 January 2001/4 years, 11 months (Applicant extended his enlistment by 10 months on 020828 and by 1 month on 020926) g. Current Enlistment Service: 4 years, 2 months, 4 days h. Total Service: 4 years, 2 months, 4 days i. Time Lost: 718 days j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 92G10, Food Service Operator m. GT Score: 111 n. Education: GED o. Overseas Service: Germany p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR 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 19 January 2001, for a period of 4 years. He was 22 years old at the time of entry and had a General Equivalency Diploma (GED). He extended his enlistment by 10 months on 28 August 2002, and again by one month on 26 September 2002. He served in Germany and did not earn any significant awards of valor or achievement. He completed 4 years, 2 months, and 4 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Riley, KS. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The applicant’s disciplinary history includes accrual of 718 days of time lost for being AWOL for the periods 20 December 2004 through 11 August 2005, 9 November 2005 through 4 February 2007, and being confined by the civilian authorities from 8 February 2007 through 2 March 2007. 2. On 13 February 2007, court-martial charges was preferred against the applicant for violating Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) based on the AWOL offenses from 23 November 2004 through 9 August 2005 and 9 November 2005 through 4 February 2007. On 13 February 2007, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial and of the maximum permissible punishment under the UCMJ, of the possible effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions, and of the rights and procedures available to him. Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. 3. In his request for discharge, the applicant acknowledged that by submitting the request for discharge he was admitting he was guilty of the charge against him or of a lesser-included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge. He also confirmed his understanding that if his request for discharge was approved, he could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge. He further stated he understood that receipt of an under other than honorable conditions discharge could result in his being deprived of many or all Army benefits, his possible ineligibility for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, and he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under State and Federal laws. The applicant confirmed he had no desire to perform further military service and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. 4. The unit commander and intermediate commanders recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 5. The separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge certificate. The applicant was reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. 6. On 5 March 2007, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he completed 4 years, 2 months and 4 days of creditable active military service and accrued 718 days of time lost due to being AWOL and confined by the civilian authorities. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Several DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Actions), dated between 31 March 2005 and 8 February 2007, and there are three undated DA Forms 4187 that reflect the applicant’s duty status changes. 2. DA Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 13 February 2007, reflects the applicant was charged with being AWOL. 3. A Charge Sheet, dated 12 December 2005, reflects the applicant was charged with being AWOL and being dropped from the roll (DFR). 4. MEDCOM Form 3822 (Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation), dated 25 October 2005, reflects the applicant had a clear and normal thought process and content, was mentally responsible and had a diagnosis of a mood disorder (NOS). 5. Two negative counseling statements, dated 17 August 2005 and 8 February 2007, for being AWOL. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided two; DD Forms 293, dated 13 May 2014, and 8 December 2014; a report from the Conemaugh Neurosurgical Associates, dated 20 August 2014, two letters of support, and a letter from Conemaugh Memorial Medical Center, dated 24 April 2014. 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 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a 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. 2. Army policy states that although an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered. 2. After examining the applicant’s record of service, his military records, the documents and the issues submitted with the application, there are mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge to general, under honorable conditions for the following reasons: a. Length and quality of service: The applicant served 4 years, 2 months, and 4 days of a 4 year, 11 month enlistment, thus the preponderance of his service was honorable. b. The record confirms the applicant suffered from a mood disorder and was diagnosed with post-service PTSD which may have been a contributing factor to his misconduct and duty performance. 3. This recommendation is made after full consideration of all of the applicant’s faithful and honorable service, as well as the record of misconduct. The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant’s characterization of service may now be too harsh and as a result inequitable. 4. The applicant contends he was unaware he was suffering from PTSD at the time of his separation. The record indicates that on 25 October 2005 the applicant was diagnosed with a mood disorder (NOS). However, on 20 August 2014, the applicant was diagnosed post-service with a more “complex” PTSD when examined by Dr. D, Conemaugh Neurosurgical Associates. 5. In view of the foregoing, it appears the characterization of the discharge is now inequitable and it is recommended the Board grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. However, the reason for the discharge was fully supported by the record and therefore, remains both proper and equitable. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 26 June 2015 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? NA Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA 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: General, Under Honorable Conditions Change Reason to: No Change Change Authority for Separation: NA Change RE Code to: NA Grade Restoration to: SPC/E-4 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) AR20140008722 Page 2 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1