IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE:	  11 February 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130009063 


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 a fully honorable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17, due to other designated physical or mental conditions.

2.  The applicant states that he was sexually assaulted by noncommissioned officers (NCOs) and the Inspector General (IG) and it affected his military performance.  He received nonjudicial punishment that was amended because of failure to ensure his constitutional rights.  He was steadily seeking help from behavioral health for various reasons, such as panic disorder, insomnia, depression, etc, due to the treatment of his command and he was discharged from mental health the day he exited the service.  He believes the good he did for the service should outweigh the negative and his mental health condition, at the time, should be taken into consideration.
 
3.  The applicant provides copies of text messages, rebuttal to an executive summary, his application and record of proceedings to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), documents related to his discharge proceedings, education records, and documents related to scheduled training and reassignment.  






CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 October 2007 for a period of 3 years, training as a parachute rigger, and for a cash enlistment bonus.  He completed his training and he was assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina for his first and only duty assignment.

2.  On 30 March 2009, he began treatment by the Department of Behavioral Health at Womack Army Medical Center (WAMC), Fort Bragg, and he was enrolled in the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP).  He continued to make progress until June 2009 when he took an overdose of drugs and was hospitalized at WAMC.

3.  On 26 May 2009, the applicant extended his enlistment for a period of
20 months in order to meet the service remaining requirements for participation in the Bonus Extension and Retraining Program for military occupational specialty (MOS) 68W (Health Care Specialist).  Training was to be completed on 4 June 2010 with a follow-up assignment to Germany.

4.  On 6 January 2010, his commander counseled him regarding his substandard duty performance and advised him that he would be subject to elimination under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b if his substandard conduct continued.  The applicant agreed with the counseling. 

5.  His records show that subsequent to the counseling he had two incidents of being absent without leave (AWOL) for 1 day during each incident and the record is silent as to any punishment imposed.  On 2 May 2010, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for disobeying a lawful order from a senior NCO and assaulting another Soldier.

6.  On 4 May 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 14-12b, by reason of pattern of misconduct for disobeying a lawful order from an NCO, assault on another Soldier, multiple instances of failure to go to his place of duty without authority and making a false official statement.

7.  The applicant consulted with counsel and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

8.  The applicant underwent a behavioral health evaluation and was diagnosed as having:

* AXIS I:  Adjustment Disorder, Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
* AXIS II: Deferred
* AXIS III: Noncontributory

9.  The examining psychiatrist opined that the applicant was mentally responsible, that he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings, that he met the retention standards of Army Regulation 40-501, and that he would not respond to command efforts at rehabilitation.

10.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be issued a general discharge.

11.  Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 10 June 2010 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, due to a pattern of misconduct.  He had served 2 years, 7 months, and 20 days of active service.

12.  The applicant applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge and a change in the separation authority and Narrative Reason for Separation citing essentially the same reasons as he has cited to this Board.  On 12 October 2012, after considering all of the available evidence, the ADRB determined that the applicant’s discharge was both proper and equitable and voted unanimously to deny his request.

13.  A review of the available records failed to show any evidence related to a sexual assault.

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

	a.  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.

	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.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200 also provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers for medical conditions such as a personality or adjustment disorders solely to spare Soldiers who have committed misconduct.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized 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 and supporting documents have been noted; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating when compared to the serious nature of his misconduct and the fact that he was cleared by medical personnel for separation.  Additionally, he has not submitted sufficient evidence to support his contentions regarding a sexual assault.

4.  Accordingly, the applicant's overall service simply did not rise to the level of a fully honorable 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)                                         AR20130009063



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130009063



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1