Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2011/03/07	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, through counsel, that late in 2005, medical personnel in Iraq clearly and unequivocally stated that the applicant needed to be medically discharged from the service because of a mental health disorder and because of prior suicide attempts.  Re-deployment optempo impeded the applicant’s command from being able to adequately respond to the advice and as a result the applicant acted out in a fashion that resulted in charges being preferred against him.  The applicant was given the choice of facing a court-martial for attempting to kill himself or receive an Other than Honorable Conditions discharge and forgo any future medical and mental health treatment through the Veteran’s Administration (VA).  The applicant chose the latter and it is for the following reasons the applicant requests that his characterization of service be upgraded to Honorable or General Under Honorable Conditions with an RE Code that will allow him to receive treatment at the VA for his service connected injuries.  The applicant first experienced mental health problems in 2003 while stationed in Baghdad; he was also actively taking Zoloft during his initial deployment.  His symptoms abated somewhat after he returned to Fort Stewart; however, he began to experience the same symptoms when he engaged in field exercises that he experienced in Iraq.  The applicant’s problems were never addressed before he deployed again to Iraq.  The applicant attempted to address his fears to the medical staff in 2005 and even went so far as to request Zoloft again, but his concerns were ignored and he did not receive adequate mental health counseling or follow up care to address his suicide attempt during his first deployment.  Additionally, the applicant suffered a significant injury to his right knee, to include a complete tear of the Anterior Collateral Ligament (ACL) and lateral meniscus tear.  

Despite the applicant’s documented mental and physical health history, he was deployed with his unit to Iraq in January 2005.  Early into his deployment the applicant began evidencing adjustment and mental health difficulties.  In February and March 2005 he received performance oriented counseling indicating he was displaying a poor attitude.  However, his first line supervisor failed to recognize that the applicant was displaying suicidal ideations.  In February 2005 the applicant asked to have his magazine taken from.  Significantly, this was precursor to what ultimately led to the preferreal of charges in December 2005.

In May of 2005 the applicant received an article 15 and was found guilty of failing to obey a lawful order.  In November of 2005 CPT J, LCSW, opined that the applicant should be medically boarded because of his mental health condition.  Rather than being sent home the applicant was subjected to abuse by SFC M, which further exacerbated the applicant’s mental health condition.  

It is respectfully submitted that the preferral of charges was merely an expedient was to chapter the applicant at a time when the unit did not have the ability to properly deal with his mental and physical health issues.  The applicant’s ultimate diagnosis is somewhat in dispute; however, CPT J and MAJ (Dr) R state that the applicant suffers from a borderline personality disorder and evidences PTSD symptoms.  When one combines the applicant’s mental health issues and well documented injury to his knee, such a recommendation is not only consistent with equity and propriety, it is respectfully submitted, equity and propriety demands such action.

To discharge the applicant for an alleged assault on an NCO, when the alleged assault was really the applicant engaging in a suicidal ideation is inconsistent with what the Army is now required to do for those Soldiers suffering from similar mental health problems such as the applicant. 







  

II.  Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed?	     
Tender Offer:   ?????

See Attachments:  Legal     Medical     Minority Opinion     Exhibits 

III.  Discharge Under Review
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: 	   Date: 051223
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 060126   Chapter: 10       AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: Headquarters and Headquarters Operations Company, Special Troops Battalion, 3d Infantry Division 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 050607, disobeyed a lawful order issued by SGT G to return to the connex yard by failing to go to the connex yard (050510); reduction to E-4, forfeiture of $979.00 pay per month for 2 months, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated by (051207) and extra duty for 45 days, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated by (051207); (FG).

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  22
Current ENL Date: 011211    Current ENL Term: 6 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	4  Yrs, 1 Mos, 15 Days ?????
Total Service:  		7  Yrs, 5 Mos, 29 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 980728 - 011210/HD
Highest Grade: E-5		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 21U10 Topographic Analyst   GT: 109   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: SWA   Combat: Kuwait/Iraq (030122 - 030720) and (050123 - 060111)
Decorations/Awards: AAM, USA/USAF PUC, ARGCM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR, ICM

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Garland, TX
Post Service Accomplishments: None

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 23 December 2005, the applicant was charged with hitting and kicking SFC M (051220), failing to obey a lawful order by SGT M, to start working on the product by refusing to work (051212), failing to obey a lawful order by SFC M, to get to work by failing to obey the same by refusing to work (051220), assault on SFC M by raising his weapon and ammunition in threatening manner (051220).
       
       On 26 December 2005, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested, in writing, discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200 in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser-included offense.  Further, the applicant indicated he understood that he could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veteran’s benefits.  The applicant did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander and intermediate commanders recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       On 2 January 2006, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request and directed the discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank.

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       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 submit a request for a 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.  Army policy states that although an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.  

       c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:  
       After a careful review of all the applicant’s available military records during the period of enlistment under review, the issues and documents submitted with the application, the analyst recommends that the applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions.  
       
       This recommendation was made after full consideration of the former Soldier’s faithful and honorable service, as well as the record of misconduct.  The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant’s characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable.  While the applicant's misconduct is not condoned, the analyst noted that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service including 2 tours of combat and the supporting documents mitigated the discrediting entries in the service record.  
       
       Accordingly, the analyst recommends to the Board that the applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions.  However, the reason for discharge remains both proper and equitable.  This action does not entail a restoration of grade to SGT/E-5.  

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 16 November 2011         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel:  [ redacted ]

Witnesses/Observers: None 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293, applicant's statement through counsel, various medical forms, personality disorder separations policy memorandum, and a DD Form 214.   

VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, notwithstanding the analyst's recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.  











 
        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 2    No change 3
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)
								         EDGAR J. YANGER			 
								         Colonel, U.S. Army
X.  Board Action Directed					         President, Army Discharge Review Board
Issue a new DD Form 214  					
Change Characterization to: 			         
Change Reason to: No Change
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA






























Legend:
AWOL    	Absent Without Leave		GCM   General Court Martial	NA   Not applicable			SCM	Summary Court Martial
BCD   	Bad Conduct Discharge	GD      General Discharge	NIF   Not in the file			SPCM	Special Court Martial
CG 	Company Grade Article 15	HD      Honorable Discharge	OAD   Ordered to Active Duty		UNC	Uncharacterized Discharge  
DD 	Dishonorable Discharge	HS       High School Graduate	OMPF   Official Military Personnel File	UOTH  	Under Other Than Honorable 
FG	Field Grade Article 15		IADT   Initial Active Duty Training	RE     Reentry Code				Conditions 

ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20110004592
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 4 pages