IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  25 October 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120007507 


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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  He states he suffered from a psychiatric condition that incapacitated him to the extent that he was not always aware of his actions.

3.  He provides a self-authored statement and a letter from a psychologist at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Following prior active and inactive service, the applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard on 30 April 2005.  He was ordered to active duty on 4 March 2006 in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.  

2.  His service record contains two DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action) which indicate he was in an absent without leave (AWOL) status on 19 July 2007 and he was present for duty on 20 July 2007.  

3.  Orders 222-804, dated 10 August 2007, discharged him from the Army National Guard and assigned him to Company B, Warrior Transition Unit, Fort Gordon, GA, effective 6 August 2007.

4.  On 8 November 2007, charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 23 July to 1 November 2007.
5.  On 8 November 2007, he consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10, and he didn't submit statements in his own behalf.

6.  On 28 January 2008, his company commander recommended approval with a UOTHC discharge.

7.  On 8 February 2008, the separation authority approved his request for discharge and directed the issuance of a UOTHC discharge.  

8.  On 5 March 2008, the applicant was discharged.  At the time, he had completed 1 year, 8 months, and 21 days active military service.

9.  On 7 December 2009, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.

10.  He submitted a self-authored statement, dated March 2012, in support of his claim stating he:

	a.  was sent back to the United States in 2007, in a medical hold status with injuries that needed surgery.  He did not receive a post-deployment briefing, training, or assistance; 

   b.  has continued to suffer from a complicated series of injuries and illnesses since he returned to the United States from deployment, such as joint replacement, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety disorders;
   
	c.  sought help at the VA Medical Center (VAMC), received counseling, and was informed he was listed as AWOL.  He was instructed on how to begin to clear up this matter.  He did not receive legal advice or representation;  

	d.  was a good Soldier who had recently been promoted to a noncommissioned officer in 2007, he had an exemplary military record, with the exception of this discharge, and he has served willingly and proudly; and

   e.  continues to receive help and treatment from the VA as documented in his medical and mental health records for over the past four plus years.  He believes he is regaining some aspects of his life.

11.  He provided a letter, dated 23 March 2012, from a staff psychologist at the VAMC, Minneapolis, MN.  This letter verifies that the applicant was currently enrolled in treatment at the Minneapolis VAMC's Mental Health Team L.  The psychologist stated he has worked with the applicant since 25 August 2009 and the applicant has received care at the clinic since October 2007.  During that period, the applicant received individual therapy and psychiatric medication for the treatment of symptoms of depression and PTSD.  The psychologist stated, based on assessments and treatments, it was apparent that these symptoms had arisen in response to the applicant's military and deployment related experiences.  The treatments provided to the applicant have sought to address symptoms stemming from these military related stressors.  

12.  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 UOTHC 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.  Although the applicant contends that his misconduct was due to a psychiatric condition, his service record is void of evidence indicating he was diagnosed with a mental condition prior to his discharge or that he raised his mental condition as a possible defense at the time.



2.  The applicant's record shows he was charged with the commission of an offense which is punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with a punitive discharge.  Discharges under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by 
court-martial.  The applicant voluntarily, willingly, and in writing, requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  All requirements of law and regulation were met, and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

3.  A UOTHC discharge was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under chapter 10.  It appears the separation authority determined the applicant's overall service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty to warrant a general or fully honorable discharge.  

4.  The evidence of record does not indicate the actions taken in his case were in error or unjust.  Therefore, there is no basis for 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 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)                                         AR20120007507



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120007507



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1