BOARD DATE:	  22 January 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120012888 


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 general discharge (GD).  

2.  The applicant states he has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and when he returned from Iraq he began acting in an unprofessional manner.  He claims he was unable to cope with returning to a routine due to the circumstances he faced while deployed.  

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement and an unsigned report titled PTSD Work Copy Only in support of his request.  

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The record shows after prior service in the Army National Guard, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 May 1984.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty 12B (Combat Engineer).  He was promoted to sergeant (SGT)/E-5 on 23 December 1986, and this is the highest grade he attained and held on active duty.  He was reduced to specialist (SPC)/E-4 for cause on 3 December 1993.  

3.  The record shows the applicant served in Southwest Asia (SWA) from
15 September 1990 to 4 April 1991.  It also shows that during his active duty tenure, he earned the following awards:

* Army Commendation Medal
* Army Achievement Medal
* Army Good Conduct Medal (3rd Award)
* National Defense Service Medal
* Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon (2) 
* Army Service Ribbon
* Overseas Service Ribbon
* Air Assault Badge
* Driver and Mechanic Badge with Driver (W) Bar
* Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar
* Southwest Asia Service Medal with 3 bronze service stars
* Kuwait Liberation Medal

4.  The applicant’s disciplinary history includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice on 1 December 1993, for absenting himself without authority from his appointed place of duty.  He also tested positive for marijuana use in a unit urinalysis in December 1993.  

5.  The record contains a Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 5 March 1994, which documents the applicant’s separation medical examination.  In the clinical evaluation portion of the form, which includes a psychiatric evaluation, the applicant received all normal evaluations.  The document notes no physical or mental defects and the examining physician assigned an 111111 physical profile and determined the applicant was fully qualified for retention/separation.  There are no medical treatment records on file that indicate the applicant suffered from any disqualifying physical or mental condition that warranted his separation processing through medical channels at the time of his discharge processing. 


6.  The unit commander notified the applicant action was being initiated to separate him under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), by reason of misconduct, commission of a serious offense based on his testing positive for marijuana use.  The unit commander recommended the applicant receive a GD.  

7.  On 14 March 1994, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the separation action and his rights in connection with the action.  Subsequent to this legal counsel, the applicant waived consideration of her case by and personal appearance before an administrative separation board.  He also elected not to submit statements in his own behalf.  

8.  On 21 March 1994, the separation authority approved the applicant’s separation and directed he be issued a GD.  On 6 April 1994, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued at the time shows he held the rank of SPC/E-4 and had completed a total of 10 years, 1 month, and 15 days of creditable active military service.  

9.  The applicant provides one page of report titled PTSD that is marked work copy only, dated 16 May 2012.  There is no medical diagnosis or physician’s signature on the page and it provides no clinical information indicating the applicant has been diagnosed with or suffers from PTSD.  

10.  There is no evidence indicating the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 provides the policies, standards, and procedures for the separation of enlisted personnel from the Army.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating personnel for misconduct 
Because of minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, and absence without leave.  Paragraph 14-3 of the separation regulation contains guidance on characterization of service for members separated under chapter 14.  It states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.  The separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record.  It further states a characterization of honorable is not authorized unless the Soldier's record is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization clearly would be inappropriate.  



DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request to upgrade his general discharge to an honorable discharge based on the fact he is now suffering from PTSD has been carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.  The evidence of record shows one incident of drug abuse.  

2.  The evidence of record is void of any medical treatment records that show the applicant was suffering from any physically or mentally disqualifying condition that would have warranted his separation processing through medical channels at the time of his discharge processing.  Further, his separation medical examination contains a normal psychiatric clinical evaluation and shows he had a 111111 physical profile.  The examining physician also determined he was medically qualified for retention/separation by the examining physician.  

3.  Notwithstanding the 2012 document provided by the applicant, which he implies shows he suffers from PTSD, absent any evidence of record showing he was suffering from PTSD or any other mental disorder at the time of his discharge processing, there is insufficient evidence to support his assertion that PTSD was the cause of his misconduct. 

4.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant tested positive for marijuana use and that he was separated on that basis.  His abuse of an illegal drug knowing the possible consequences supported his separation processing.  Based on his abuse of an illegal drug, his separation by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense and the GD he received were appropriate and accurately reflected the overall character of his service.  

5.  The applicant's separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  By regulation, an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of misconduct.  Clearly, the applicant’s record of misconduct diminished his overall record of service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.

6.  In view of the foregoing and absent evidence of error or injustice in the discharge process, there is an insufficient evidentiary 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 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)                                         AR20120012888



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120012888



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1