IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  2 February 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110015302 


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 his general discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, while on active duty he began to experience extreme knee pain and was unable to pass the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT).  However, his commander failed to believe that he was experiencing the pain and recommended immediate discharge.  He also states he began to experience sleep problems while in Iraq and attributed it to the environment.  He did not seek treatment until he left active duty.  He was diagnosed with severe sleep apnea which contributed to his problems such as failure to appear and poor judgment.  He claims his GD does not accurately reflect his overall duty performance; he would like his entire record reviewed and consideration of the issues he raises which he believes supports an upgrade of his discharge.  

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability rating decisions in support of his application.  

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The record shows the applicant was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Regular Army, on 7 August 2003, and was promoted to first lieutenant on 21 July 2005.   

2.  On 25 January 2007, while serving in Iraq, the applicant received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) for behavior and actions that brought discredit upon him, his unit, and the U.S. Army.  

3.  The applicant’s record is void of any indication that he suffered from any disqualifying medical or mental condition that would have supported separation processing through medical channels.  

4.  On 24 April 2007, the acting commanding general (CG) of the 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, Kansas, notified the applicant he was required to show cause for retention on active duty for apathy and unwillingness to expend effort, conduct unbecoming of an officer, and for adverse information filed in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).  The acting CG stated his action was based on the following specific reasons for elimination:

   a.  Failing two APFT's and failing to meet the weight/body fat standard over a period of 13 months;

	b.  Conduct unbecoming of an officer for multiple offenses of failure to repair in 2004;

   c.  Wrongful use of government equipment, specifically possessing and viewing pornography on several government computers in violation of General Order Number 1 between April and December 2006 while deployed to Iraq; and 

   d.  Adverse and derogatory information filed in his OMPF. 

5.  In the show cause memorandum, the acting CG notified the applicant he intended to recommend the issuance of a GD.  He further informed the applicant that before he took any action he would consider all written comments or a rebuttal that the applicant may submit. 

6.  On 24 May 2007, the applicant submitted a rebuttal to the notice of intent to separate.  He expressed his desire to continue serving and indicated he was not in compliance with the APFT and height and weight standards.  He also admitted to the conduct unbecoming allegation stating it was stupid for him to have pornography on his computer.  He finally stated regarding his failure to repair issues he had addressed them and successfully worked to overcome the problem.  He stated he had not missed a formation or failed to be at his place of duty since early 2004, and he had been promoted to first lieutenant. 



7.  On 30 May 2007, the CG, 1st Infantry Division, confirmed he had carefully considered all the evidence collected against the applicant, including his rebuttal matters, and he had determined elimination was warranted.  He recommended the applicant receive a GD.  

8.  On 2 July 2007, the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards), subsequent to review of the applicant’s case by the Department of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board, determined the applicant should be discharged from the United States Army with a GD.  On 12 August 2007, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  

9.  On 13 August 2008, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), after carefully considering the applicant’s entire military record and the issues he raised, determined the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable and voted to deny his request for an upgrade of his discharge and to change the narrative reason for his separation.

10.  The applicant provides a VA Rating Decision, dated 13 December 2007, which granted him service connection for disabilities at the following rates: 

* psychiatric disorder, to include anxiety and depression, 30 percent
* degenerative joint disease of the lumbosacral spine, 10 percent
* left knee disorder to include patellofemoral pain syndrome, 0 percent

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-24 sets forth the basic authority for officer transfers and discharges.  Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedures for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interest of national security.    

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-24 states an officer will normally receive an honorable characterization of service when the quality of the officer's service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for an officer.  An officer will normally receive an under honorable conditions characterization of service when the officer's military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that his GD should be upgrade to an HD based on his medical problems has been carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.   

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s elimination processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the applicant’s rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.   

3.  The applicant’s GOMOR and the show cause memorandum prepared by his CG clearly show his misconduct diminished the overall qualify of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  Further, the record is void of any indication that the medical problems raised by the applicant supported his separation processing through medical channels, or that he had medical problems that were a major contributing factor to the misconduct that resulted in his discharge.  As a result, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the 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)                                         AR20110015302



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110015302



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1