BOARD DATE:	  23 October 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140006726 


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 to change his character of discharge and requests correction of his military record to reflect award of the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) with "V" Device.

2.  The applicant states:

* he had a difficult time adjusting after returning from service in Iraq, where he was involved in several ground engagements 
* he began to self-medicate with alcohol and hashish as a coping mechanism 
* he did not have anyone to talk to about his combat stress and the term post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was not widely used at the time
* he received an ARCOM with "V" device while in formation, but it does not appear on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)

3.  The applicant provides:

* self-authored statement
* VA Form 21-0781 (Statement in Support of Claim for Service Connection for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder)
* DD Form 214
* DVD showing receipt of an ARCOM with "V" device in formation


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 30 January 1989.  His records show he completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 93P (Aviation Operations Specialist).  

3.  The applicant deployed to Southwest Asia from 22 December 1990 through 
26 April 1991 and participated in the Defense of Saudi Arabia and the Defense and Liberation of Kuwait campaigns.

4.  On 22 June 1992, the applicant's commander initiated discharge action against him based on his commission of a serious offense.  The reason for the action:  the applicant was administered a urinalysis test, the results of which were returned as positive for the use of marijuana.  This is in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 112a.  Where derogatory information has been revealed, make note of any evidence of rehabilitation: ADAPCP [Army Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program].

5.  On 22 June 1992, the applicant's commander submitted a recommendation of honorable characterization for the applicant's discharge and stated, in part, that it was not considered feasible or appropriate to accomplish other disposition due to the Soldier's past performance; he did not feel that the offense warranted more severe action.

6.  On 22 June 1992, the applicant consulted with counsel and he was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action for commission of a serious offense, the type of discharge he could receive, the possible effects of this discharge, and the procedures and rights available to him.

7.  On 22 June 1992, the applicant's battalion commander forwarded the separation action to the general court-martial convening authority with a recommendation for separation with an honorable discharge.  

8.  On 3 July 1992, the applicant's brigade commander approved a general discharge under honorable conditions.

9.  On 24 July 1992, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  His DD Form 214 shows he completed 3 years, 5 months, and 25 days of active service.

10.  There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

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 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 under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.

	b.  Paragraph 1-16d(2) states the rehabilitative transfer requirements in chapters 11, 13, and 14 may be waived by the separation authority in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate that such transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier.

	c.  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.

	d.  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.

12.  Army Regulation 600-85, in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures needed to implement, operate, and evaluate the ADAPCP.  It stated, in part, that when the commander determined that duty performance and progress was unsatisfactory and could not justify further rehabilitation efforts in a military environment, discharge from the military service would be affected.  It further stated that ADAPCP services would continue to be provided until the client was separated and that enlisted Soldiers identified as illegally abusing drugs would be processed for separation in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200.

13.  The applicant provided a VA Form 21-0781, in support of a claim for service connection for PTSD, in which he makes descriptive statements regarding 
4 stressful incidents that occurred to him while deployed in Iraq.

14.  The applicant's self-authored statement suggests he suffered from PTSD and used alcohol and drugs to mitigate the effects of the PTSD.

15.  The applicant's complete service medical records are not available for review.  His records are void of and he fails to provide evidence showing a diagnosis of or treatment for PTSD.

16.  His DD Form 214 also shows receipt of the following awards:

* Army Achievement Medal
* National Defense Service Medal
* Army Service Ribbon
* Overseas Service Ribbon
* Southwest Asia Service Medal with 3 bronze service stars
* Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with rifle bar, M-16
* Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with grenade bar
* Kuwaiti Liberation Medal

17.  The applicant also provided video footage of an award ceremony in which he is awarded the ARCOM for valor.

18.  His records are void of orders or a DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) awarding him the ARCOM with "V" and he does not provide either document.

19.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the ARCOM may be awarded to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while
serving in any capacity with the Army after 6 December 1941, distinguishes himself or herself by heroism, meritorious achievement, or meritorious service.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.

20.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states that the DA Form 638 will be used to initiate, process, and approve award recommendations of all U.S. Army individual decorations, to include valor and heroism decorations.  Narratives for valor must contain a description of the following elements: terrain and weather of the area in which the action took place; enemy conditions, to include morale, proximity, firepower, casualties and situation prior to, during and after the act; the effect of the act on the enemy; the action of comrades in the immediate vicinity of the act and the degree of their participation in the act; if the act occurred in aerial flight, the type and position of the aircraft and the individual’s crew position; the degree to which the act was voluntary; the degree to which the act was outstanding and exceeded what was normally expected of the individual; all unusual circumstances; and overall effects or results of the act.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for a change of discharge characterization and award of the ARCOM with "V" device was carefully considered.

2.  Army Regulation 635-200 provides separation authorities with the authority to waive the rehabilitative transfer requirements in chapters 11, 13, and 14 in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate that such transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier.  

3.  The applicant's misconduct solely involved drug abuse and there is no evidence of record that he was diagnosed with PTSD or was self-medicating to mitigate the effects of PTSD or a similar mental condition.

4.  The VA Form 21-0781 consists of self-authored statements that in and of themselves do not corroborate the diagnosis or treatment of PTSD.

5.  The applicant provided a DVD depicting an award ceremony, but his records are void of any evidence showing the ARCOM with "V" was approved for him and orders were issued.  Without the orders, the DA Form 638, or other documentary evidence showing the award approval authority approved the award, there is no basis upon which to grant the applicant's requested relief for award of the ARCOM with "V" device.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis upon which to grant the 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 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)                                         AR20140006726





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140006726



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1