IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  22 July 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130020746


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.

2.  The applicant states:

* he should have been issued an honorable discharge due to the fact that he became mentally ill while serving and not receiving an honorable discharge is an injustice for that reason
* he was unable to function correctly due to the mental illness symptoms he was experiencing and he was therefore he was not able to do his job, which included following orders
* he was hospitalized and he was reported by his unit as being absent without leave (AWOL) during this period 
* his medication was taken from him and this, coupled with the frustration of being considered AWOL during his hospitalization, contributed to the events that resulted in his discharge
* it is obvious that a less than honorable discharge is an injustice in his case
* he did his best and gave it his all – he had no control over becoming mentally ill while he was serving
* he was unable to make right or wrong decisions regarding the details of his discharge due to his mental instability at the time he was discharged

3.  The applicant provides a letter from a medical doctor (staff psychiatrist) at Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates, dated 11 November 2013.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 7 November 2005, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed his initial entry training and was awarded military occupational specialty 21B (Combat Engineer).

2.  On or about 20 March 2006 upon the completion of his initial entry training, he was reassigned to Echo Company, 2nd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, GA.

3.  On 17 April 2006, he was counseled by his squad leader for failing to be at his appointed place of duty and for failing to follow a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer (NCO).

4.  On 26 April 2006, he was admitted to The Cambridge Hospital Campus, Cambridge, MA, for psychiatric emergency services.

5.  On 3 May 2006, he was discharged from The Cambridge Hospital Campus.  His discharge summary shows he was diagnosed with psychosis, not otherwise specified.  However, his diagnosis ruled out the possibility of schizoaffective disorder, bipolar affective disorder, and substance-induced psychosis.  At the time of his discharge, his examining psychiatrist determined he was both medically and psychiatrically stable.

6.  On 3 May 2006, upon his return to Fort Stewart, GA, he was admitted to Winn Army Community Hospital for a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation and a mental status evaluation.  The staff psychiatrist who examined him indicated:

	a.  He had no withdrawal symptoms on the ward.  He displayed no suicidal behavior on the ward and participated cooperatively in individual and group therapy.  He was not regarded as a danger to himself or others at the time of his discharge.

	b.  His diagnosis was as follows:

* Axis I – adjustment disorder, malingering
* Axis II – personality disorder

	c.  His findings were as follows:

* he met the retention standards prescribed in Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3
* there was no psychiatric disease/defect that warranted disposition through medical channels
* he did not require a medical board
* he was mentally sound and able to appreciate any wrongfulness in his conduct and to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law
* he possessed the mental capacity to understand and participate in board or other administrative procedures

	d.  His Medical Command (MEDCOM) Form 699-R (Mental Status Evaluation) shows:

* his behavior was normal
* he was fully alert and fully oriented
* his mood or affect was unremarkable
* his thinking process was clear
* his thought content was normal
* his memory was good
* he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings
* he was mentally responsible and met the standards for retention under Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3

7.  On 12 May 2006, he was counseled by his squad leader for being AWOL.

	a.  In his counseling session, his squad leader noted:

* on 29 April 2006, he packed most of his belongings in his car and drove to Massachusetts without the approval, consent, or knowledge of his chain of command
* while he was AWOL, he contacted an attorney then admitted himself into a civilian hospital for psychiatric care
* upon his return to his military control on 3 May 2006, he was admitted to Winn Army Community Hospital where he was administered a series of examinations that ultimately determined he was not bipolar
* his behavior suggests an unwillingness to fulfill his military obligations

	b.  The applicant signed the DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form) and placed a checkmark in the appropriate block indicating he agreed with the counseling summary.

8.  Also on 12 May 2006, his pass privileges were revoked by his company commander.  In the revocation memorandum, he was instructed to:

* remain within the boundaries of the Fort Stewart military installation
* refrain from wearing civilian clothing and remain in a prescribed military uniform at all times
* refrain from operating his vehicle
* report to the battalion staff duty NCO/charge of quarters at regularly-stated intervals

9.  On 25 May 2006, he was counseled by his squad leader for violating a direct order from his company commander.  In his counseling session, his squad leader noted that he was expressly told what he could not do, vis-à-vis the revocation of his pass privileges, yet he chose to violate each of the stated restrictions.

10.  On 25 May 2006, court-martial charges were preferred against him for:

* three specifications of charge I for violating Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) – specifically, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on or about 13 April 2006, 26 April 2006, and 24 May 2006
* a single specification of charge II for violating Article 90 of the UCMJ – specifically, for willfully disobeying the orders of a commissioned officer on divers occasions
* a single specification of charge III for violating Article 91 of the UCMJ – specifically, for willfully disobeying the orders of an NCO on or about 17 April 2006

11.  Both his immediate and battalion commanders recommended referral of the charges to a special court-martial empowered to adjudge a bad conduct discharge.

12.  On 31 May 2006, he consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct discharge or a discharge under other than honorable conditions, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of a request for discharge, and  the procedures and rights available to him.  Following consultation with legal counsel, he requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 10.

13.  In his request for discharge, he indicated that he was making this request of his own free will and he had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person.  He also indicated he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charges against him or of lesser-included offenses that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He further acknowledged he understood that if the discharge request were approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.

14.  On 6 June 2006, the separation authority approved his voluntary request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial in accordance with chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 and directed his discharge under other than honorable conditions.

15.  On 22 June 2006, he was discharged accordingly.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) confirms he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial and his service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions.

16.  On 10 September 2008, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed his request for an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions.  After careful consideration, the ADRB determined the reason for his discharge and the character of his service were both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.

17.  He provided a letter from a medical doctor (staff psychiatrist) at Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates, dated 11 November 2013, which states the applicant is currently being treated for schizophrenia and has been treated for this condition by this psychiatrist since at least 2009, possibly as early as 2006.  The psychiatrist states it is likely the applicant suffered from early symptoms of this condition while he was in the military.

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

	a.  Chapter 10 provides that an enlisted member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  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.

	c.  Paragraph 3-7b, provides that 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 applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge was carefully considered.

2.  He contends:

* he should have been issued an honorable discharge due to the fact that he became mentally ill while serving and not receiving an honorable discharge is an injustice for that reason
* he was unable to function correctly due to the mental illness symptoms he was experiencing and he was therefore he was not able to do his job, which included following orders
* he was hospitalized and he was reported by his unit as being AWOL during this period
* his medication was taken from him and this, coupled with the frustration of being considered AWOL during his hospitalization, contributed to the events that resulted in his discharge
* he did his best and gave it his all – he had no control over becoming mentally ill while he was serving
* he was unable to make right or wrong decisions regarding the details of his discharge due to his mental instability at the time he was discharged

3.  His mental afflictions are noted; however, after thorough evaluation by psychiatrists at The Cambridge Hospital Campus and Winn Army Community Hospital, he was found medically and psychiatrically stable without any psychiatric disease or defect that warranted disposition through medical channels.  He did not require a medical board.  He was mentally sound and able to appreciate any wrongfulness in his conduct, and to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.  In light of this medical evidence, his contentions are rejected.

4.  His records show he was charged with the commission of offenses punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.  Discharges under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He voluntarily, willingly, and in writing requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.

5.  As evidenced by his misconduct that resulted in court-martial charges, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct rendered his service unsatisfactory; therefore, he is not entitled to a discharge upgrade.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for relief in this case.

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)                                         AR20130020746



6


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1