IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  10 July 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120001857 


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 reconsideration of his earlier request for an upgrade of the character and a change to the reason for his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.  

2.  The applicant states he has been trying to get his discharge changed since 2008 based on mistakes made by his chain of command.  In a Congressional Inquiry he contends, in effect, that given the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) considers his discharge honorable for benefit purposes the Army should also consider his service was honorable.

3.  The applicant provides a Congressional Inquiry packet in support of his request.  

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20110010665, on 17 November 2011.  

2.  The applicant provides a new argument in a Congressional Inquiry that warrants consideration by the Board.  

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 March 2003, and was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 91W (Health Care Specialist).  

4.  The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the Army, and the applicant has failed to provide them with any of his applications to this Board and to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB).  The record does contain a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) that identifies the authority and reason for his discharge.  

5.  The DD Form 214 shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Administrative Separations) and that his service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions.  

6.  The record shows the applicant’s case was considered by the ADRB during a records review hearing on 29 May 2009, and at a personal appearance hearing with the applicant present on 24 June 2010.  The ADRB, during both reviews, determined the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable, and it voted unanimously to deny the applicant’s request to upgrade the characterization of and to change the reason for his discharge.  

7.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for 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.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

	b.  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.

	c.  Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request to upgrade the characterization and change the reason for his UOTHC discharge has again been carefully considered.  However, there remains insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  The applicant has not provided his discharge packet, his medical records, or his VA rating decision for consideration by the Board.

3.  The fact the VA has granted service connection for medical conditions the applicant suffered from while on active duty does not support a conclusion that these conditions rendered the applicant unfit for further service at the time of his discharge processing.  The available medical evidence of record is void of any indication that the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during his discharge processing that would have warranted his separation processing through medical channels.  As a result, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support a change to the reason for his discharge to show a medical discharge.  

4.  The available evidence does not include a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's final discharge processing.  However, it does include a DD Form 214 that identifies the reason for and characterization of the applicant's discharge and as a result government regularity in the discharge process is presumed.  

5.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  In connection with this type of discharge, the applicant would have been charged with the commission of an offense punishable with a punitive discharge under the UCMJ.  Procedurally, he was required to consult with defense counsel and to voluntarily request separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In the absence of information to the contrary, it is concluded that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

6.  The applicant has failed to provide new evidence that would support a change to the original decision of this Board or that would 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20110010665, dated 17 November 2011.  



      _______ _   _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)                                         AR20120001857



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120001857


2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1