BOARD DATE:	  25 June 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120020731 


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 that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states that he had a good military record but he was suffering from an addiction that was caused by Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) due to combat service.  He also states that he was being successfully treated by the military prior to his abrupt and unsought discharge.  

3.  The applicant provides copies of his Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) claim documents, treatment records, two statements from a former commander and squad leader, and a copy of his Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) application and proceedings. 

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests that the applicant’s general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.

2.  Counsel states the applicant served in Iraq and Afghanistan and he had medical issues which included PTSD and chemical dependency.  He was receiving treatment for his issues prior to, during, and after his administrative separation.  It is unclear why he was discharged against his wishes and before he completed the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP).  He goes on to state that he desires copies of the applicant’s personnel and medical records to assist in processing the applicant’s application.
3.  Counsel provides a VA Form 21-22a (Appointment of Individual as Claimant's Representative) and a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) Compliant Medical Authorization signed by the applicant.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 January 2008 for a period of 3 years and 16 weeks, training as a combat engineer, and a $6,000 cash enlistment bonus.  He completed one-station unit training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri and he was transferred to Fort Carson, Colorado for his first and only duty assignment.

2.  He deployed to Iraq from 15 February 2009 through 30 April 2009 and to Afghanistan from 1 May 2009 through 9 February 2010.

3.  On 28 June 2010, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for two specifications of failure to go to his appointed place of duty and for the wrongful use of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), an ingredient found in marijuana.

4.  On 20 September 2010, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-122b, due to a pattern of misconduct.  He cites as the basis for his recommendation that the applicant reported to detail with the smell of alcohol on his breath, the applicant tested positive for THC, was out of rank during a company formation, and failed to go to his appointed place of duty.

5.  After consulting with defense counsel, the applicant elected to submit a statement in his own behalf and requested 7 days in which to do so.  There is no evidence in the available records to show that he actually submitted the statement. 

6.  The applicant’s company and battalion both recommended that the applicant be retained in service or that he be issued an honorable characterization of service.

7.  On 13 October 2010, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that the applicant be discharged under honorable conditions.



8.  Accordingly, on 30 November 2010, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, due to a pattern of misconduct with a general discharge.  He had served 2 years, 10 months and 
27 days of active service.

9.  On 10 June 2011, he applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge based on essentially the same reasons as stated to this Board.  

10.  On 13 January 2012, the ADRB determined that the applicant’s discharge was both proper and equitable under the circumstances and voted unanimously to deny his request for an upgrade of his discharge.

11.  The applicant provides letters from three former members of his chain of command all recommending that his discharge be upgraded and letters from medical officials indicating that the applicant suffers from PTSD and substance abuse.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and procedures for separating personnel for misconduct.  Specific categories included minor infractions, a pattern of misconduct, involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities, and commission of a serious offense, which includes drug offenses.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.  

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's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.




2.  Accordingly, the characterization of his service was appropriate for the circumstances of his case.

3.  The applicant’s contentions and supporting documents have been noted; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating when compared to the serious and repeated nature of his offenses.  His service simply does not rise to the level of a fully honorable discharge.

4.  Additionally, the applicant has provided no evidence to substantiate his claim that his case was mishandled or that PTSD caused his misconduct.  The final decision as to whether the applicant should have remained in service to complete the ASAP program rested with the separation approval authority and it appears that a decision was made to discharge the applicant and allow him to complete his treatment with the Department of Veterans Affairs, which was within his authority.

5.  In regard to the counsel’s request for the applicant’s records, the National Personnel Record Center in St Louis, Missouri is the custodian of the applicant’s records and he is not precluded from submitting a freedom of information request to obtain the records requested. 

6.  Accordingly, there appears to be no basis to upgrade his discharge.

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)                                         AR20120020731



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120020731



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1