Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2011/10/13	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he had developed both PTSD as well as survivor guilt and was having marital problems while on active duty; and now he is attending college in the field of law enforcement and was accepted into the Alaska State Patrol. 

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

See Attachments:  Legal     Medical     Minority Opinion     Exhibits 

III.  Discharge Under Review
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: 	   Date: 100923
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 101116   Chapter: 14-12b     AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: ????? 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 091229, willfully disobeyed a lawful command issued by CPT, his superior commissioned officer (091214), reduction to the grade of Private First Class (E-3), forfeiture of $409.00 pay, extra duty and restriction for 14 days (CG)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  19
Current ENL Date: 071115    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  19 weeks
Current ENL Service: 	3 Yrs, 0 Mos, 2 Days ?????
Total Service:  		3 Yrs, 0 Mos, 2 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 19K10 K4 Armor Crewman   GT: 94   EDU: GED Cert   Overseas: Southwest Asia   Combat: Iraq (080905-090814)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICMw/2 CS, ASR, OSR, CAB

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant stated in his issue that he is attending college in the field of law enforcement and was accepted into the Alaska State Patrol. 









VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 23 September 2010, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of a pattern of misconduct; in that he failed to obey multiple direct orders from his chain of command to provide support to his wife until the divorce was over; disrespect towards a noncommissioned officer; disobeyed a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer and failed to report.  The unit commander recommended separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 
       
       He was advised of his rights.  On 23 September 2010, the applicant waived legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  On 26 October 2010, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 of this regulation establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed.  Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.  

       c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:  
       After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records, and the issue submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors which would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  
       
       The analyst determined that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  By the misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  
       
       The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.  
       
       The analyst noted the applicant's issue that he had developed both PTSD as well as survivor guilt and was having marital problems while on active duty; and now he is attending college in the field of law enforcement and was accepted into the Alaska State Patrol.  The analyst acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and the many accomplishments outlined in his application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. 
       
       Further, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  The record shows that on 19 August 2010, the applicant underwent a mental evaluation which indicates that he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong.  The analyst concluded that just because the applicant suffers from PTSD does not mean he doesn't know the difference between right and wrong or that he did not have control over his behavior.  There are many Soldiers with the same condition that complete their service successfully. 
       
       
       
       
       The applicant contends that he was having marital problems while on active duty.  Specifically, he claims his marital problems at home resulted in his discharge.  While the applicant may believe his marital problems at home was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief from his problems through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other resources available to all Soldiers.  Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct.  
       
       The applicant contends that the narrative reason for his discharge should be changed.  However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200 with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "(Pattern of Misconduct)", and the separation code is "JKA." 
       
       Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be entered exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes.  The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized.  There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation.  
       
       Therefore, the analyst determined the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief. 

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 19 May 2012         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 dated 24 September 2011, self authored statement, which was undated.























VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering 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						
Board Vote:
Character - Change 0    No change 5
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)

X.  Board Action Directed
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to: 
Change Reason to: No Change
Other: No Change
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: No Change

XI.  Certification Signature
Approval Authority:




EDGAR J. YANGER
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board




BONITA E. TROTMAN
Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army
Secretary Recorder














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 AR20110020604
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 4 pages