IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 September 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140013976 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 discharge from general, under honorable conditions to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, his discharge directly correlates to his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) caused by his deployment to Afghanistan. He was assigned a 70 percent medical disability for PTSD with generalized anxiety. Due to self-medicating with alcohol to cope with the effects of PTSD, he received a DUI within months of returning from Afghanistan and was discharged. He is striving to better himself to further his career in the medical field and an upgrade of his discharge would greatly assist him in reaching his goals. He desires to use the Post 911 GI Bill to further his nursing career. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 5 August 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 16 May 2012 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE: Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200 Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: HHB, 4-320th Field Artillery Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, Fort Campbell, KY f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 19 November 2008, 4 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 3 years, 5 months, 16 days h. Total Service: 3 years, 9 months, 14 days i. Lost time: 11 days j. Previous Discharges: ARNG (080721-081118)/HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 68W10, Health Care Specialist m. GT Score: 114 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Southwest Asia p. Combat Service: Afghanistan (100813-110803) q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, NDSM, ACM-W/CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR NATO MDL r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: None t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard on 21 July 2008, for a period of 8 years. He was 22 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He was discharged on 18 November 2008, with an honorable discharge. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 November 2008, for a period of 4 years. He was 23 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 68W10, Health Care Specialist. His record shows he served a combat tour, earned an ARCOM; and he achieved the rank of SPC/E-4. He was serving at Fort Campbell, KY when his discharge was initiated. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates on 21 February 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct (serious offense). Specifically for the following offenses: a. driving while under the influence of alcohol, and b. being in possession of synthetic cannabinoids. 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 4 April 2012, the applicant consult with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement on 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 with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 4. On 12 April 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 discharged from the Army on 16 May 2012, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct (serious offense), with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKQ and an RE code of 3. 6. The applicant’s record of service indicates 11 days of time lost for being confined by civil authorities from 16 April 2012 until 27 April 2012. 7. The applicant’s service record does not contain any action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. The applicant received a negative counseling statement, dated 5 October 2011 for being charged with DUI. 2. A Military Police Report, dated 3 November 2011, indicating the applicant was under investigation for driving under the influence of alcohol and implied consent violation on post, with sworn statements. 3. A CID Report of Investigation dated 11 October 2011, indicating the applicant was under investigation for failing to obey a general order-CAM Regulation 210-1. 4. Two administrative General Officer Memoranda for Record (GOMOR), dated 26 March 2010 and 5 October 2011 for driving while drunk and refusing to take a lawfully requested test to measure the alcohol content of his breath, respectively. 5. A DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 16 December 2011, indicating the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for chapter 14 proceedings and any action deemed necessary by command. He is to continue treatment in the ASAP program as necessary and was advised of behavioral health services offered. The applicant declined further behavioral services at the time. 6. The record contains two DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 16 April 2012 and 30 April 2012 showing the present for duty and confinement dates. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) compensation decision (five pages), and a VA Rating Decision (four pages), and a DD Form 214. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant did not provide any information with 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 issues and documents 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 the misconduct (serious offense), the applicant diminished the quality his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by a negative counseling statement, a military police report with sworn statements, two GOMORS, and two DA Forms 4187. 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 his discharge from the Army directly correlates to his PTSD caused by his deployment to Afghanistan. The applicant bears the burden of presenting substantial and credible evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention PTSD caused his discharge. On 16 December 2011, the applicant was screened for PTSD and mild traumatic brain injury and both screens were negative for those conditions. 5. The applicant further contends he was assigned a 70 percent medical disability for PTSD with generalized anxiety. The fact the VA granted the applicant service connection disability for medical conditions he suffered while on active duty does not support a conclusion that these conditions rendered the applicant unfit for further service at the time of his discharge processing. The available medical evidence in the record is void of any indication that the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during his discharge processing that would have warranted his separation processing through medical channels. 6. Further, 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. 7. The applicant also contends due to self-medicating with alcohol to cope with the effects of PTSD, he received a DUI within months of returning from Afghanistan and was discharged. The record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. 8. Additionally, the record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 9. Furthermore, the applicant contends he is striving to better himself to further his career in the medical field and an upgrade of his discharge would greatly assist him in reaching his goals. The Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 10. The applicant desires to use the Post 911 GI Bill to further his nursing career. 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. 11. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 12. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, the analyst recommends the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 17 September 2014 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify: No Counsel: None 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 RE Code to: No Change Grade Restoration to: NA Change Authority for Separation: No Change 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) AR20140013976 Page 7 of 7 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1