IN THE CASE OF:   

		BOARD DATE:  10 July 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130020509 


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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to honorable.

2.  The applicant states he had undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) when he returned from deployment to Africa.  He suffered from severe signs of PTSD and used drugs and alcohol as a coping mechanism to "escape" memories of what he did and saw in Africa.  This ultimately led to his UOTHC discharge.  He has recently accepted that he has PTSD and feels a change in his discharge will help on his path to recovery.

3.  The applicant provides letters of support from his mother, his father, and a friend.

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 applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 May 1993.  He held military  occupational specialty 11M (Fighting Vehicle Infantryman).

3.  His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II) shows in:

	a.  item 5 (Oversea Service), he served in Somalia;

	b.  item 9 (Awards, Decorations, and Campaigns), he was awarded or authorized the Army Service Ribbon, National Defense Service Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, and the United National Medal; and 

4.  A 31 May 1995 Report of Mental Status Evaluation shows his behavior was normal, he was fully oriented, his mood was unremarkable, his thinking process was clear with normal thought content, and his memory was good.  He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed necessary by the command.  

5.  A 12 July 1995 medical examination shows the applicant was qualified for separation with no mental health issues annotated.

6.  On 2 August 1995, his immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him for patterns of misconduct and commission of a serious offense.  The commander stated the reasons for the proposed actions were incidents of:  altering a military identification card, dereliction of duty, absence without leave (AWOL), absences from his place of duty, drinking under age, traffic violations, and disrespect to a noncommissioned officer (NCO). 

7.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation notification action and consulted with counsel.  He waived his rights and elected to not submit a statement on his own behalf.  

8.  The applicant's immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b for patterns of misconduct and paragraph 
14-12(c) for misconduct – commission of a serious offense.  The commander further recommended his discharge UOTHC.

9.  The applicant's battalion commander and brigade commander recommended approval and the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed a UOTHC discharge.  
10.  On 29 August 1995, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct.  He had completed 2 years, 2 months, and 29 days of creditable active service.

11.  There is no available evidence showing he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

12.  In support of his request, the applicant provides letters of support from:

	a.  His mother who states he was a quiet, serious well-adjusted man prior to serving in the military.  He entered the Army and completed his basic and advanced training with no problems.  He was disappointed that he was not assigned as an airborne ranger but gave his best.  After he returned from deployment to Somalia he was a different person.  He was angry, drank excessively, fighting, etc.  Her brother is a Vietnam veteran who receives 100% disability for PTSD.  He is an alcoholic, three-times divorced and full of rage.  She does not want to see her son suffer the same way.  No one at Fort Stewart, Georgia, seemed to care and he was discharged after getting into trouble repeatedly.  He currently lives with her and his father after his third driving under the influence (DUI) arrest.  They have spent tens of thousands of dollars of their retirement money to keep him out of jail.  They would be very happy to see his discharge changed so that he can seek the help he needs through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).  

	b.  His father who states that he was a helicopter pilot in Vietnam and Cambodia.  It took him 26 years after his combat duty to quit having flashbacks about his experiences in Vietnam.  When his son returned from Somalia he was a different person.  He was agitated, combative in his behavior, angry, getting into fights, and drinking heavily.  He chose to self-medicate with drugs and alcohol to try and cope with his PTSD.  The change to an honorable discharge would be helpful because he could seek the professional help he needs through the VA.  

	c.  A friend who states she has known the applicant for a year and a half and knows he is a great man who will go out of his way for family, friends, and strangers alike but has deep-rooted issues stemming from his combat deployment to Africa in 1994.  It took the applicant a while to open up about his deployment to Africa but when he did he told stories about being in the middle of firefights that left his friends with life-threatening injuries, being on foot patrol and realizing his platoon was in the middle of a mine field, and being shot at by men hiding in crowds of women and children.  After returning home he had a hard time adjusting and quickly developed a drinking problem.  This led to his UOTHC discharge.  He is facing serious legal trouble from attempting to self-medicate with drugs and alcohol.  If he had been treated based upon his signs and symptoms of PTSD he would never have received the discharge he did.  The discharge should be changed so he can get the help he needs. 

13.  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 consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions), a pattern of misconduct (consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline), commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities.  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 UOTHC is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7a states 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.

	c.  Paragraph 3-7b states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged for misconduct.   All requirements of law and regulation were presumably met and the rights of the applicant appear to have been fully protected throughout the separation process.

2.  A Report of Mental Health Status Evaluation and medical examination indicate he was cleared for administrative separation with no evidence of any mental health issues.

3.  The letters of support provided by the applicant were noted.  However, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no 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 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)                                         AR20120009372



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130020509



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1