RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  5 February 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070011670 


	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. Michael J. Fowler

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Kenneth L. Wright

Chairperson

Mr. Antonio Uribe

Member

Mr. Ronald D. Grant

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 that his discharge be upgraded from under other than honorable conditions to a general discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he has been diagnosed with depression and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  He is a single parent and needs to move his recovery to a new level.  However, he cannot get Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) assistance unless his discharge is upgraded.  He concludes that he was proud to have served his country and regrets that he disgraced himself, his fellow Soldiers, and the U.S. Army.

3.  The applicant provides three letters of support from Burrell Behavior Health, Columbia, Missouri; and a front page of a DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), dated 4 April 1991.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 September 1990 and successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training.  He was awarded military occupational specialty 12C (Bridge Crewman).

3.  The court-martial charge sheet is not available.

4.  The applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service packet is not available.

5.  The applicant's service personnel records do not contain the facts and circumstances surrounding his separation process.  However, his DD Form 
214 shows that he was discharged on 23 September 1992 under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) by reason of "FOR THE GOOD OF THE SERVICE – IN LIEU OF COURT MARTIAL" with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  The applicant completed 1 year, 11 months, and 27 days of creditable active service with no lost time.

6.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to upgrade his discharge.  On 8 May 2007, the ADRB reviewed and denied the applicant's request for upgrade.  The ADRB determined that the applicant's discharge was proper and equitable and that the discharge was properly characterized as under other than honorable conditions.

7.  The applicant submitted three letters of support from Burrell Behavior Health, Columbia, Missouri.  The authors all state, in effect, that the applicant suffers from depression/PTSD and is currently being treated.  They all recommend that the applicant's discharge be upgraded to receive VA benefits.  

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may, at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for 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. An under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate.

9.  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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  

10.  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 CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that he has been diagnosed with depression/PTSD and that his discharge should be upgraded so that he can get the proper treatment he needs from the VA.  His discharge packet is not available, and there is no evidence and the applicant has not provided evidence that shows he suffered from PTSD or that any mental disorder was the cause of his misconduct while serving in the military.  Therefore, there is an insufficient basis to upgrade his discharge. The ABCMR does not correct records solely for the purpose of obtaining eligibility for VA benefits.  

2.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the applicant's separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations and without procedural errors that would jeopardize his rights.  Therefore, it is concluded that the characterization of the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__KLW__  ___AU    _  ___RDG_  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.





____ Ronald D. Grant __
          CHAIRPERSON



INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070011670
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
5 FEBRUARY 2008
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
UOTHC
DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
MS. MITRANO
ISSUES         1.
144.0134.0000
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.