IN THE CASE OF:	   

		BOARD DATE:	  17 October 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130002583 


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 upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge.  Additionally, he requests, in effect, award of the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal (GWOTSM) and the Overseas Service Ribbon.

2.  He states his commander hated him and he suffers from service-related post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  Therefore, the driving under the influence of alcohol incident while he was enrolled in the program was false.

3.  He does not provide any additional evidence.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 31 October 2000 for a period of 4 years.  He served in Germany from 4 April 2001 to on or about 24 December 2003, a period of 2 years, 8 months, and 21 days.

2.  Information obtained from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) indicates he served in Germany on an accompanied tour.  However, on or about 11 December 2002, the commander initiated an early return of dependents action.

3.  On 6 June 2003, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for driving while drunk and operating a vehicle with a revoked or suspended U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR) license on 22 February 2003.

4.  On 10 September 2003, he underwent a mental status evaluation.  The psychiatrist indicated the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings.  He further stated the applicant did not have a psychiatric defect or deficiency that would warrant discharge through medical channels.  He was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command.

5.  On 23 September 2003, the applicant underwent a medical examination wherein the medical doctor indicated he was qualified for separation.

6.  On 14 November 2003, the unit commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations),
chapter 14, by reason of a pattern of misconduct.  He stated his recommendation was based on the following:

* the applicant disobeyed a lawful order from a superior commissioned officer not to possess, purchase, or consume alcoholic beverages
* the Crime Records Center substantiated a case of abuse against him as the offender and he violated a no-contact order with his wife
* he was counseled for repeated offenses of failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the correct time
* he was counseled for drinking alcohol while enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program
* he received an Article 15 on 17 October 2001 for failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the correct time
* he received an Article 15 on 22 February 2003 for drunk driving and operating a privately owned vehicle on a suspended license

7.  On an unknown date, the applicant consulted with military counsel.  After being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects and the rights available to him, he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  He acknowledged he understood he could encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge was issued to him.  He further acknowledged he understood if he received a character of service that was less than honorable he could make an application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for an upgrade of his discharge.  However, he understood that an act of consideration by either board did not imply that his discharge would be upgraded.  He also understood he would be ineligible to apply for enlistment in the U.S. Army for a period of 2 years after discharge.

8.  On 11 December 2003, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

9.  On 24 December 2003, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  He completed 3 years, 1 month, and 24 days of creditable active service.  His DD Form 214 shows in:

* item 12f (Foreign Service) the entry "0002  08  24" (2 years, 8 months, and 24 days)
* item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) the:

* National Defense Service Medal
* Army Service Ribbon

10.  On 26 March 2012, he petitioned the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge. On 4 September 2012, after careful consideration of his military records and all other available evidence, the ADRB determined he was properly and equitably discharged.  As a result, the ADRB denied his request for a discharge upgrade.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  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, and abuse of illegal drugs.  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.  However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record.  

	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.

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides Department of the Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual military decorations, service medals and ribbons, and similar devices awarded in recognition of accomplishments.  It states:

	a.  The Overseas Service Ribbon was established by the Secretary of the Army on 10 April 1981.  Effective 1 August 1981, all members of the Active Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve in an active Reserve status are eligible for the award for successful completion of overseas tours.

	b.  The GWOTSM is authorized for award to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who participated in Global War on Terrorism operations outside of the areas of eligibility designated for award of the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medal, or Iraq Campaign Medal.  All Soldiers on active duty, including Reserve Component Soldiers mobilized or National Guard Soldiers activated, on or after 11 September 2001 to a date to be determined having served 30 consecutive or 60 nonconsecutive days are authorized the GWOTSM.

13.  Army Regulation 614-30 (Overseas Service) provides overseas tour lengths for military personnel.  It shows the accompanied tour length for Germany is 36 months.

14.  The same regulation states that a Soldier serving in Germany who receives an approval to change his/her tour from accompanied to unaccompanied may have their tour prorated.  The date eligible to return from overseas will be based on the period served on the unaccompanied tour minus the credit for the accompanied tour equal to the days remaining to serve as of the effective date of the change of tour.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant argues, in effect, that his discharge should be upgraded because his indiscipline was based on PTSD that either resulted from or occurred during his military service.

2.  The evidence shows that on 10 September 2003 he underwent a mental status evaluation that psychiatrically cleared him for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command.  There is no evidence and he has not provided any to show he suffers from PTSD and that this PTSD influenced his behavior.

3.  The available evidence confirms that all requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  The record further shows his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.

4.  His record of indiscipline does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

5.  The evidence of record shows he served on active duty on 11 September 2001 and for more than 30 days; therefore, he is entitled to the GWOTSM and correction of his DD Form 214 to show this award.

6.  The evidence of record shows the applicant served 2 years, 8 months, and
24 days of a 36-month accompanied tour in Germany.  Therefore, he was not given tour completion credit.  On or about 11 December 2002, the commander initiated an early return of dependents.  Without evidence confirming the exact dates of arrival to and departure from Germany of his dependents, there is no way to establish a tour completion date.  Therefore, in absence of documentation to show he was awarded tour completion credit for Germany, the presumption of regularity must be applied.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

___x____  ____x___  ___x____  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by adding to item 13 of his DD Form 214 the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented was insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to upgrading his general discharge to an honorable discharge and awarding him the Overseas Service Ribbon.



      _______ _   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)                                         AR20130002583



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130002583



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1