RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        6 December 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070009556


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano          |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Kathleen A. Newman            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Rose M. Lys                   |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Edward E. Montgomery          |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his general, under honorable
conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was suffering from a Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) after returning from Iraq and is currently
being treated for this condition by the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA).

3.  The applicant provides a Self-Authored Statement and VA Rating Decision
in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 23 March 2002.  He was trained in and awarded
military occupational specialty (MOS) 92Y (Unit Supply Specialist), and
private/E-2 (PV2) is the highest rank he attained while serving on active
duty.

2.  The applicant's record shows that during his active duty tenure, he
earned the National Defense Service Medal (NDSM), Army Service Ribbon
(ASR), Global War on Terrorism Service Medal (GWOTSM), and the Presidential
Unit Citation (PUC).  His record documents no acts of valor or significant
achievement.

3.  On 18 October 2004, the applicant departed absent without leave (AWOL)
from his unit at Fort Stewart, Georgia, and remained away for 24 days until
returning to military control on 11 November 2004.

4.  On 7 February 2005, the applicant received a Memorandum of Reprimand
for driving under the influence (DUI).  It stated that the applicant had
been observed driving at a high rate of speed and that the police officer
who stopped the applicant detected a strong odor of alcohol emitting from
the applicant.  The applicant failed several field sobriety tests and
refused to take a breathalyzer test.  Investigation revealed that the
applicant's license and registration were suspended and that he was driving
without insurance.  It was also discovered that the applicant had an
outstanding warrant for his arrest for contempt of court resulting from a
prior DUI.  It further indicates the applicant was cited for DUI, failure
to appear (contempt), speeding, driving while license suspended, no
insurance, and suspended registration.

5.  On 11 March 2005, the applicant underwent a Mental Status Evaluation.
The examining Psychologist found the applicant's behavior was normal, that
he was fully alert and oriented, and that his thinking process was clear
and his thought context was normal.  The Psychologist further determined
that the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in
the proceedings, was mentally responsible and met medical retention
requirements.  The applicant was cleared for any administrative action
deemed appropriate by his command.

6.  On 24 March 2005, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP)
under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ) for failing to go to his appointed place of duty and of other
offenses listed on a continuation sheet that is no longer on file in the
record.  His punishment for these offenses was a reduction to private/E-1
(PV1), forfeiture of $692.00 per month for two months, and 45 days of extra
duty.

7.  On 8 April 2005, the applicant underwent a separation physical
examination.  The Report of Medical Examination (DD Form 2808) shows the
applicant's psychiatric clinical evaluation was normal, and the applicant
was given a Physical Profile of 111111.  There is no indication that he was
suffering from a mentally or physically disqualifying condition at the time
of this examination and he was medically cleared for retention/separation
by the examining physician.

8.  On 19 April 2005, the unit commander notified the applicant that action
was being initiated to separate him under the provisions of chapter 14,
Army Regulation 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct.  The commander cited
the applicant's multiple UCMJ violations such as failure to report and
failure to obey orders as the basis for taking the action.  The unit
commander informed the applicant that he was recommending he receive a GD.

9.  The applicant consulted with counsel and was advised of the basis for
the contemplated separation action and of its effects, of the rights
available to him and of the effect of any action taken by him to waive his
rights.  Subsequent to this counseling, the applicant elected to waive his
right to consulting counsel and he elected not to submit statements in his
own behalf.

10.  On 22 April 2005, the separation authority approved the separation
action on the applicant and directed he receive a GD.  On 29 April 2005,
the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 he was issued
shows he completed a total of 2 years, 11 months, and 10 days of creditable
active military service and accrued 26 days of time lost due to AWOL.

11.   On 31 May 2006, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), after a
careful review of the applicant's military records and all other available
evidence, determined the applicant's discharge was proper and equitable and
it voted not to upgrade his discharge.

12.  The applicant provides a VA Rating Decision, dated 22 December 2006,
which indicates the applicant was a veteran of the Gulf War Era, and was
granted service connection for a PTSD with depression and alcohol (also
claimed as stress and anger) with a 50 percent disability rating, which was
upgraded to 60 percent, effective 12 January 2006.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) 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, commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil
authorities.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when
it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is
unlikely to succeed.  An Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC)
discharge is normally considered appropriate for members separated under
this chapter.  However, the separation authority may award an HD or GD if
warranted by the member's overall record of service.

14.  PTSD, an anxiety disorder, was recognized as a psychiatric disorder in
1980 with the publishing of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM).  The condition is described in the current DSM-IV, pages
424 through 429.  The Army used established standards and procedures for
determining fitness for entrance and retention and utilized those
procedures and standards in evaluating the applicant at the time of his
discharge.  The specific diagnostic label given to an individual’s
condition subsequent to discharge may change, but any change does not call
into question the application of then existing fitness standards.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his discharge should be upgraded
because he suffers from a PTSD was carefully considered.  However, the
evidence of record confirms that the applicant's separation processing was
accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation, which included a
complete mental status evaluation and medical examination, which both found
the applicant suffered from no disabling mental of physical condition that
would have warranted his processing through medical channels.  All
requirements of law and regulation were met and the applicant's rights were
fully protected throughout the separation process.

2.  The Army used established standards and procedures for determining
fitness for entrance and retention and utilized those procedures and
standards in evaluating the applicant at the time of his discharge.  The
specific diagnostic label given to an individual’s condition subsequent to
discharge may change, but any change does not call into question the
application of then existing fitness standards.

3.  Although the VA has now granted the applicant service connection for
PTSD, this factor alone does not excuse the misconduct that led to the
applicant's discharge.  The applicant was found to be mentally responsible
during a psychiatric evaluation completed on him during the separation
process.  As a result, absent any evidence that he suffered from a mentally
or physically disabling condition at the time of his discharge, there is an
insufficient evidentiary basis to support and upgrade of his discharge at
this time.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily
appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to
submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__KAN __  __RML __  __EEM__  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.




                                  _____Kathleen A. Newman____
                                            CHAIRPERSON


                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070009556                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/12/06                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |2005/04/29                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Misconduct                              |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]