IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	     4 September 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120005134 


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 an upgrade of his discharge under honorable conditions to honorable.

2.  The applicant states he was not eligible to receive medical treatment until July 2011 when his discharge was upgraded by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB).  He was subsequently diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to his active duty service.  He argues that if he had received proper treatment while on active duty he would not have been kicked out of the Army.  Transition battalions did not exist in 2004.  If they had, he would have been placed in one of them and everything would have happened differently.  He does not dispute the actions of the Army or abdicate responsibility for his actions.  However, in light of the new medical evidence, he humbly asks to be given an honorable discharge and the dignity that he was denied in 2006.

3.  The applicant provides:

* letter from Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), dated 29 February 2012
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) as upgraded on 12 April 2011
* Page 3 of 3, ADRB Case Report and Directive, dated 21 March 2011



CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 30 April 2003, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 46Q (Journalist).

2.  The applicant served in Iraq from 18 July 2004 to 2 February 2005.

3.  On or about 22 November 2005, charges were preferred under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for the following violations:

	a.  Article 91 for disrespect to a noncommissioned officer (NCO) and for willful disobedience of the same NCO,

	b.  Article 92 for failure to obey a regulation, and

	c.  Article 134 for disorderly conduct.

4.  On 1 February 2006, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested to be discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 10.  He admitted guilt to the offenses or to lesser-included offenses.  He indicated he understood he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that such a discharge would have a significant effect on his eligibility for veterans' benefits.  The applicant did not submit a statement on his own behalf.  The unit commander recommended approval of the applicant's request and the appropriate separation authority approved the request.

5.  On 16 February 2006, the applicant was accordingly discharged.

6.  On 21 March 2011, the ADRB considered the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.  The ADRB determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on his length of service, to include his combat service and post-service accomplishments.  Accordingly, the ADRB voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of his character of service to general under honorable conditions.  The ADRB further determined the reason for his discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it.  His rank was restored to specialist/pay grade E-4.

7.  On or about 12 April 2011, the applicant's DD Form 214 was reissued showing his character of service as under honorable conditions (general).

8.  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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial may at any time after charges have been preferred.  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.

9.  The VA letter, dated 29 February 2012, essentially states the applicant has received a comprehensive assessment from the Trauma Service Program of the Washington DC VA Medical Center.  He was diagnosed with PTSD related to events that occurred during his military service.  He is currently receiving individual psychotherapy that addresses his difficulties associated with PTSD.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable by a punitive discharge.  After consulting with defense counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  All requirements of law and regulation were met.  The rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

2.  The ADRB subsequently determined that his character of service was too harsh and voted to change it to under honorable conditions.  However, the reason for his discharge was found to be proper and equitable.

3.  The evidence clearly shows the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and this condition was linked to his military service.  However, there is no evidence to support his contention that this condition was the proximate cause of the misconduct that led to his discharge.

4.  In view of the above, the applicant's request should be denied.



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)                                         AR20120005134



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120005134



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1