IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 12 December 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140017507 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action 1. 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 characterization of service was improper. The record confirms the government introduced into the discharge packet a counseling statement which disclosed the Soldier had self-referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) which violated the limited use policy. This is limited use information as defined in AR 600-85 and mandates award of an honorable characterization of service. 2. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant full relief and upgrade the characterization of service to honorable. However, the Board determined reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not the 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 from general, under honorable conditions to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, the misconduct that caused his discharge was related to undiagnosed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) at the time. He returned from Iraq and began experiencing symptoms subsequently diagnosed as PTSD. He began self-medicating with alcohol resulting in him receiving a DUI and stealing a laptop computer. He believes if he had been promptly diagnosed with PTSD by his chain of command, he would have received medical care and counseling that would have prevented these incidents from happening and completed his enlistment with an honorable discharge. His duty performance was exemplary before his out of character behavior; he received an ARCOM and was on the E-5 promotion list. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 2 October 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 15 September 2006 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE: Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: M Troop, 4-2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment, Fort Lewis, WA f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 17 September 2002, 4 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 3 years, 10 months, 29 days h. Total Service: 3 years, 10 months, 29 days i. Lost time: 29 days j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 96B1P, Intelligence Analyst m. GT Score: 117 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Southwest Asia p. Combat Service: Iraq (041014-051014) q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, NDSM, ICM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: No t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 September 2002, for a period of 4 years. He was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 96B1P, Intelligence Analyst. 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 Lewis, WA when his discharge was initiated. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates on 17 August 2006, 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. failing to obey a lawful general order, b. disobeying a lawful order from a warrant officer, c. wrongfully exposing himself in an indecent manner to the public, and d. committing larceny resulting in a Summary-Court Martial. 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 23 August 2006, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted 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 6 September 2006, 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 15 September 2006, 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 29 days of time lost for being confined by military authorities from 10 May 2006 until 9 June 2006, as a part of court martial sentence. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. A Summary Court-Martial, dated 10 May 2006 for attempting to sell a stolen laptop computer (060316); and larceny of property other than military property of a value more than $500 (060303). He was sentenced to a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $849 pay and confinement for 30 days. 2. An Article 15, dated 16 August 2004, for willfully and wrongfully exposing in an indecent manner to public view his penis (040724); the punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2 (suspended) and forfeiture of $328 pay for one month (suspended), (CG). 3. An Article 15, dated 7 April 2004, for willfully disobeying the lawful order of a warrant officer or a noncommissioned officer x 2 (040327); the punishment consisted of extra duty for 14 days and restriction for 14 days, (Summarized). 4. The applicant received four negative counseling statements, dated between 1 May 2006 and 18 July 2006 for self-referring to ASAP, violating his ASAP agreement, disobeying a lawful order, disrespecting a NCO, violating quarters profile, drinking alcohol, and being flagged for elimination. 5. A memorandum of agreement, dated 17 April 2006 indicating the applicant entered an ASAP agreement. 6. Municipal Court of Steilacoom, Washington documents (three pages), dated 14 July 2006 indication the applicant was charged with running a stop sign and driving under the influence. 7. A DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 21 July 2006 indicating the applicant was mentally responsible for his behavior, could distinguish right from wrong and possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in administrative and judicial proceedings. He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative actions deemed necessary by command. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, a DD Form 214, DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award, two pages), ARCOM certificate, VA Form 21-4138 (Statement in Support of Claim, two pages), and a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) claim/compensation decision (eight pages). 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, the characterization of service was improper. 2. The record confirms the government introduced into the discharge packet a counseling statement which disclosed the Soldier had self referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) which violated the limited use policy. This is limited use information as defined in AR 600-85 and mandates award of an honorable characterization of service. 3. The records show the proper discharge and separation procedures were not followed in this case. 4. Therefore, the characterization of service being improper, recommend the Board grant relief by upgrading the applicant’s characterization to honorable. However, the reason for the discharge was fully supported by the record and remains both proper and equitable. 5. Furthermore, the independent document (VA claim/compensation decision), is acknowledged which granted the applicant a 50 percent disability rating for service connected Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) with cannabis use disorder secondary to PTSD. However, there is no record of an in-service diagnosis of PTSD and the applicant did not submit any evidence supporting an in service diagnosis of PTSD. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 12 December 2014 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: Honorable 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) AR20140017507 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1