BOARD DATE:	  25 January 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100018256 


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 a medical discharge.

2.  He states the Fort Richardson Mental Health Clinic misdiagnosed the severity of his depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to retention practices by this chain of command.  He was diagnosed with a case of "severe depression" that should have constituted a medical discharge.  His mental health was never considered in the discharge process.

3.  He provides:

* DD Form 2807-1 (Report of Medical History)
* DD Form 2808 (Report of Medical Examination)
* Radiologic Examination Report
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army in pay grade E-1 on 1 March 2006, for 4 years.  He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 92F (Petroleum Supply Specialist).  He reenlisted in pay grade E-3 on 8 August 2007 for 6 years.

2.  On 13 March 2008, a Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (FLAG) was initiated against the applicant for adverse action.  The FLAG was approved on 17 March 2008.
3.  On 17 June 2008, he accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for unlawfully restraining his spouse's wrists with wire and endangering the mental health of a child under the age of 16 by restraining the child's mother in front of the child on 16 March 2008.

4.  A Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 8 October 2008, shows his behavior was found to be normal.  He was found to be fully alert and fully oriented, his mood or affect was unremarkable, his thinking process was clear, his thought content was normal and his memory was good.  The evaluating psychologist, an Army Medical Service Corps officer, found him to be mentally responsible and considered him to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in separation proceedings.  He was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate.  The evaluating psychologist found no evidence of mental disorder which would have affected his judgment and reasoning or which would have required disposition through medical channels.  A thorough review of the history and treatment record of the applicant showed no history of enduring mental illness which would have required resolution prior to an administrative separation.  The applicant's mental status was clear.  

5.  On 27 October 2008, he accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for failing to go to his prescribed place of duty on 19, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 30 September 2008.

6.  On 29 October 2008, the applicant’s company commander advised him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Separations), paragraph 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct, with a general discharge.  The company commander stated the applicant had received an Article 15 for failing to go to his appointed place of duty on 6 occasions and for assault and child endangerment.  The applicant also received counseling for failing to go to his appointed place of duty on 19, 23, 25, 26, and 30 September 2008 and 2, 3, 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22 October 2008 and on 19 September 2008 for not being allowed to make contact with his spouse.  The applicant was further advised of his rights.

7.  On the same date, after consulting with counsel, he acknowledged receipt of the company commander's notification.  He acknowledged that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions was issued to him.  He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.


8.  On 31 October 2008, the applicant’s company commander recommended separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct, with a general discharge.  The company commander stated he did not consider it feasible or appropriate to accomplish any other disposition and the applicant had demonstrated a lack of rehabilitative potential through multiple acts of misconduct.  The company commander stated there was no medical or other data meriting consideration in the overall evaluation to separate the applicant and in the determination as to the appropriate characterization of service.

9.  On 3 December 2008, the applicant's battalion commander recommended the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct, with a general discharge,

10.  On 5 December 2008, the separation authority approved the recommendation for the applicant's discharge and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

11.  On 18 December 2008, he was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct with a general discharge.  He was credited with completion of 2 years, 9 months, and 18 days of net active service.

12.  He provided DD Forms 2807-1 and 2808, both dated 8 October 2008, wherein he stated he was hospitalized for attempted suicide in September 2008 and he was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder.  He also provided a Radiologic Examination Report, dated 15 December 2008, which shows he underwent a chest x-ray after swallowing bleach.  

13.  There is no evidence he was diagnosed with severe depression or PTSD or given a temporary or permanent physical profile for these conditions during his period of active service.

14.  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.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions 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.

15.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), then in effect, established the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES).  It sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier was unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.  If a Soldier was found unfit because of physical disability, the regulation provided for disposition of the Soldier according to applicable laws and regulations.  Soldiers were referred into the PDES when they no longer met medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501(Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence shows the applicant received performance counseling related to failure to go to his appointed place of duty on 17 occasions.  He was also punished under Article 15 for failing to go to his appointed place of duty on
6 occasions, for assault, and child endangerment. 

2.  A Report of Mental Status Evaluation found no evidence of mental disorder which would have affected his judgment and reasoning or which would have required disposition through medical channels.  A review of his history and treatment record shows no history of enduring mental illness which would have required resolution prior to an administrative separation.  

3.  His contentions are not sufficiently supported by his records or his application. There is no error or injustice in his record.  He was properly discharged in accordance with pertinent regulations with due process.  He was advised of the factual reasons for the proposed separation action and he acknowledged he understood the proposed separation action and that he would receive a general discharge.  

4.  Without evidence to the contrary, his administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, with no procedural errors, which would have jeopardized his rights.

5.  In view of the circumstances in this case, there is no basis for granting his request for a medical discharge.







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)                                         AR20100018256



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100018256

   
2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1