IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    8 October 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130003656 


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, in effect, an upgrade of his general discharge under honorable conditions to honorable.

2.  The applicant states that at the time he was in the military he did not know he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  His PTSD was the reason he was not showing up for work which resulted in his discharge.

3.  The applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision, and DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 June 2001 for a period of 4 years, training as a motor transport operator, assignment to Fort Stewart, Georgia, and a $10,000.00 enlistment bonus.  He completed one-station unit training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and was transferred to Fort Stewart for his first and only assignment.

2.  The applicant deployed to Kuwait/Iraq with his unit during the period 20 January to 26 August 2003 and returned to Fort Stewart.

3.  The applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) during the periods 1 through 13 June 2004 and 12 through 18 July 2004.  He turned himself in on both occasions and his records are silent as to any punishment imposed for those absences.

4.  On 4 October 2004, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for failing to go to his place of duty on seven occasions.

5.  On 5 October 2004, he underwent a mental status evaluation and was determined to be mentally responsible.  He was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his chain of command.

6.  On 20 October 2004, his commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service for misconduct – pattern of misconduct – under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 14-12b.  He cited the applicant's two periods of AWOL and his numerous incidents of failing to go to his place of duty as the basis for his recommendation.

7.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

8.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 14 December 2004 and directed his discharge under honorable conditions (general).

9.  Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 12 January 2005 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, due to misconduct – pattern of misconduct.  He completed 3 years, 6 months, and 10 days of active service and accrued 19 days of lost time due to AWOL.  He had no individual awards.

10.  He applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 7 May 2010 requesting an upgrade of his discharge to honorable.  He cited the following reasons that his discharge should be upgraded:

* clemency was warranted because it was an injustice for him to suffer the adverse consequences of a bad discharge
* his average conduct and efficiency ratings/behavior and proficiency marks were pretty good
* he received awards and decorations
* he had successful combat service
* his record of promotions showed he was generally a good service member
* he was so close to finishing his tour that it was unfair to give him a bad discharge
* his ability to serve was impaired by his youth and immaturity
* personal problems impaired his ability to serve
* his discharge was based on many offenses, but they were mostly minor offenses
* when he returned from overseas he could not adjust to stateside duty

11.  After considering all of the facts and circumstances of his case, the ADRB determined that his discharge was both proper and equitable under the circumstances and voted unanimously to deny his request for an upgrade of his discharge.

12.  The VA Rating Decision provided by the applicant shows he was granted a 30-percent service-connected disability rating for PTSD effective 8 June 2011.

13.  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 include 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.

14.  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 and the narrative reason for separation were appropriate for the circumstances of his case.
 
3.   The applicant's contentions have been noted; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating when compared to the repeated nature of his offenses.  He failed to show through the evidence submitted with his application and the evidence of record that his PTSD was the cause of his misconduct.  His overall record of service simply did not rise to the level of a fully honorable discharge.

4.  Therefore, there appears to be no basis to grant his request for an upgrade of his discharge to fully honorable.

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)                                         AR20130003656



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130003656



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1