IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  16 November 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100012783 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states he was granted a waiver when he entered the U.S. Army for Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD).  He states he developed other psychological disabilities due to his combat experiences.  After he was released from active duty, he was given a 10 percent (%) disabled rating by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).  He states his misconduct cited in proceedings under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) were symptomatic of his psychological disabilities incurred in the line of duty.  He states he approached noncommissioned officers (NCO) within his unit, but they were not helpful.  Based on the failure of his chain of command and the U.S. Army to provide him with adequate counseling and medical treatment for his psychological disabilities, he now asks for an upgrade of his discharge and a change to his narrative reason for separation. 

3.  He provides the following documentary evidence:

	a.  his DD Form 214 with a separation date of 10 August 2004;

   b.  a DVA Rating Decision and accompanying supporting documents, dated 23 July 2008;


	c.  a DVA benefit entitlement letter, dated 24 July 2008; and

	d.  two Standard Forms (SF) 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care), dated 5 December 2004 and 4 June 2004.
 
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 June 2002 for a 3-year period of service.  He completed his initial entry training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 13M (Multiple Launch Rocket System [MLRS] Crewmember).  His service record shows he served in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq from 20 January 2003 to 3 June 2003.

2.  The applicant's record is void of the facts and circumstances that led his chain of command to recommend his separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct.  

3.  The applicant's medical records are not available for the Board's review.  However, his entrance physical shows he was not qualified for service due to ADD and he was processed for a waiver of that disqualification.  

4.  The applicant was discharged on 10 August 2004.  His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct.  He had completed 2 years, 1 month, and 29 days of net active service this period with time lost from 23-25 December 2003.

5.  On 8 November 2007, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge.  On 6 February 2008, having determined the applicant discharge was proper and equitable, the ADRB unanimously voted to deny his request.

6.  The applicant provided two excerpts from his medical records showing he was seen at the post behavioral health clinic on 5 December 2003 for an adjustment disorder.  His recommended medical treatment plan was individual therapy with a professional therapist and individual counseling with a mental health specialist.  This treatment was projected for 3 months and he was approved by both the clinical medical doctor and clinical psychologist.  He also submitted documents showing he was seen in this same clinic on 14 June 2004 for occupational stress.

7.  In addition, he provided his DVA Rating Decision showing the DVA determined he has a service-connected disability for adjustment disorder with depression (claimed as post traumatic stress disorder) with a 10% disability rating as of 23 July 2008.  He provided DVA financial documents to show he is entitled to financial benefits based on his service-connected disability.

8.  References:

	a.  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, 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 discharge is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.  However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record.  Only a general court-martial convening authority may approve an honorable discharge or delegate approval authority for an honorable discharge under this provision of regulation.

	b.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

1.  While the applicant's medical records were not available for review, there is no evidence to show the applicant's misconduct was due to a medical condition.

2.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed the applicant's separation approval authority considered his overall record of service before rendering his final decision.  As a result, the applicant was issued a general discharge instead of an under other than honorable conditions discharge that is normally considered appropriate under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct.

3.  As the applicant has failed to provide evidence to show an error or an injustice occurred during his separation processing, there is no justification to upgrade a properly constituted discharge.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__X_____  ___X____  ___X____  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.



      _______ X   _______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100012783



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100012783



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1