Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004740
Original file (20120004740.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  25 September 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120004740 


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 her general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states:

* she suffered from a service-connected mental illness that caused her behavior to be less than admirable
* her actions could not be explained at the time

3.  The applicant provides:

* Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical records
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 August 2007 for a period of 3 years and 2 weeks.  She completed her training and was awarded military occupational specialty 74D (chemical operations specialist).  She arrived in Iraq on 11 June 2008.

2.  On 15 November 2008, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against her for disobeying a lawful command (two specifications), failing to repair (four specifications), assaulting a noncommissioned officer, using disrespectful language (two specifications), and disobeying a lawful order (two specifications).

3.  On 10 December 2008, she was convicted by a summary court-martial of failing to repair (two specifications), disobeying a lawful command, disobeying a lawful order, and treating a noncommissioned officer with contempt.

4.  On 22 April 2009, she was notified of her pending separation for misconduct (patterns of misconduct) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 14-12b.  The unit commander cited her NJP and summary court-martial offenses.

5.  On 22 April 2009, she consulted with counsel, acknowledged that she might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge were issued, and elected not to submit a statement on her own behalf.

6.  On 25 April 2009, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of a general discharge.

7.  She departed Iraq on 28 April 2009.

8.  On 15 May 2009, she was discharged under honorable conditions (general) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct (patterns of misconduct).  She completed a total of 1 year, 7 months, and 24 days of creditable active service with 37 days of lost time.

9.  There is no evidence of record which shows she was diagnosed with any mental condition prior to her discharge.

10.  She provided VA medical records, dated 2011 and 2012, which show:

* she was diagnosed with major depression with psychotic features in 2011
* she was treated for schizoaffective disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder in 2011 and 2012

11.  On 22 December 2010, the Army Discharge Review Board denied her request for an honorable discharge.

12.  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 (military or civilian 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.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends she suffered from a service-connected mental illness that caused her behavior to be less than admirable.  However, there is no evidence which shows she was diagnosed with any mental condition prior to her discharge.  There is also no evidence that shows she was having mental problems in 2008/2009 that interfered with her ability to perform her military duties or that this was the underlying cause for the misconduct that led to her discharge.  The VA medical records provided by the applicant show she was diagnosed with major depression and psychotic features in 2011.

2.  Her record of service included one NJP, one summary court-martial, and 
37 days of lost time.  As a result, her record of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

3.  Her administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized her rights.  She had an opportunity to submit a statement in which she could have voiced her concerns; however, she failed to do so.

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons were therefore appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's 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 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)                                         AR20120004740



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120004740



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017059

    Original file (20110017059.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. She was discharged under honorable conditions (general) on 25 January 2010 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct (drug abuse). _____________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.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012018

    Original file (20140012018.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, correction of her military records to show she was discharged due to a physical disability and that she held the rank of specialist, pay grade E-4. The Army must find that a service member is physically unfit to reasonably perform his or her duties and assign an appropriate disability rating before he or she can be medically retired or separated from active duty. The Army must find that a service member is physically unfit to reasonably perform his or her...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016618

    Original file (20140016618.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no evidence in her record, and she did not provide any evidence, that shows while serving on active duty she was treated for, or diagnosed with, any mental/medical condition/disorder that permanently prevented her from performing her assigned duties, was found to be unfitting, or required referral to a medical evaluation board (MEB) or physical evaluation board (PEB). Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) governs the evaluation of...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130020028

    Original file (AR20130020028.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 16 September 2013, the separation authority approved the recommendation of the administrative separation board and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers), dated 23 July 2013, reflects the board recommended the applicant be separated from the Army for a pattern of misconduct, under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, with an...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130011024

    Original file (AR20130011024.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 28 May 2013 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE: Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14 paragraph 14-12b, JKA, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: E Co, 3rd Bn, 43rd ADA, 11th ADA Bde, Fort Bliss, TX f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 14 February 2011, 4 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 3 months, 10 days h. Total Service: 2 years, 3 months, 10 days i. On 14 May 2013, the separation authority waived further...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130015118

    Original file (AR20130015118.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 12 December 2012, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The applicant contends her discharge should be upgraded because her mistakes were very minor; both her company and battalion commanders recommended her for an honorable discharge; and that she was having adjustment issues due to her medical conditions. The applicant contends her immediate commanders...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013890C071029

    Original file (20060013890C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice that occurred on 15 September 1982, the date she was notified by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) it had determined, based on her military records and all other available evidence, she had been properly discharged. On 29 October 1980, the applicant's unit commander notified her he was recommending that she be discharged from the Army under the provision of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, chapter 14. On 25 November...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | AR20140007381

    Original file (AR20140007381.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that her general discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). On 31 August 1989, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, with issuance of a GD. Her overall record of service was considered and resulted in the issuance of a GD instead of the UOTHC discharge that is normally appropriate for members separated for misconduct.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | AR20140007381

    Original file (AR20140007381 .txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that her general discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). On 31 August 1989, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, with issuance of a GD. Her overall record of service was considered and resulted in the issuance of a GD instead of the UOTHC discharge that is normally appropriate for members separated for misconduct.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120015745

    Original file (20120015745.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The psychologist opined she met the criteria for Personality Disorder with Schizoid and Paranoid features; therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Army Regulation 625-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) her unit should consider an administrative separation under chapter 5-13, as it was likely she would continue to present with emotional and behavioral difficulties that reflect a long-standing pattern of difficulties. The psychologist opined she met the criteria for...