BOARD DATE: 14 April 2015
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150004087
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.
2. The applicant states that he has proved to be a great citizen of his community and during the time he was in the military he was diagnosed with depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), sleep apnea, and other problems he did not have before his entry into the service. He goes on to state that he desires to finish his education and cannot receive his benefits with a general discharge.
3. The applicant provides copies of medical documents showing he was diagnosed as having sleep apnea, adjustment insomnia, inadequate sleep hygiene, allergic rhinitis, and PTSD.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 31 July 2008 for a period of 8 years. He completed his training as a signal support systems specialist and on 2 September 2010, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years and was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas. He deployed to Afghanistan during the period 20110619 20120617.
2. The facts and circumstances surrounding his administrative discharge are not present in the available records. However, his records do contain a DD Form 214 signed by the applicant which shows that he was discharged under honorable conditions on 6 June 2013 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, due to a pattern of misconduct. He had served 2 years,
9 months, and 6 days of active service.
3. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 2 February 2014 contending that his misconduct was caused by his PTSD. After reviewing the facts and circumstances of his case, the ADRB determined that his discharge was both proper and equitable under the circumstances and voted to deny relief in his case on 9 January 2015.
4. A review of his official records failed to reveal the pattern of misconduct that led to his discharge.
5. 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.
6. Paragraph 3-7a of Army Regulation 635-200 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. In the absence of the facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge, it must be presumed that the applicant's administrative discharge was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.
2. Accordingly, it must also be presumed that the characterization and the narrative reason for discharge were appropriate for the circumstances of his case.
3. The applicant's contention that his misconduct was caused by his PTSD has been noted; however, it appears that the applicants chain of command took his diagnosed condition into account was convinced that he knew the difference between right and wrong and that he had the ability to adhere to the right. Many Soldiers who have the same condition complete their service successfully without committing acts of misconduct.
4. Therefore, based on the available evidence and the governments presumption of regularity, it appears that the characterization of his service was both proper and equitable and that there is no basis to grant his request for an upgrade of his 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) AR20150004087
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150004087
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020055
On 4 September 2008, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, by reason of pattern of misconduct. b. Paragraph 1-33 provides when the medical treatment facility commander or attending medical officer determines that a Soldier being processed for administrative separation under chapters 14 does not meet the medical fitness standards for retention under the provisions of Army Regulation 40-501, he/she will...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021237
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states: * he was receiving mental health treatment post deployment * he was discharged for "Pattern of Misconduct" due to being late to formation * PTSD should have be considered in determining his discharge * he should have been "medically boarded" due to his PTSD/Sleep Problems 3. On 11 January 2011, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions (general) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter...
ARMY | DRB | CY2011 | AR20110024464
Applicant Name: ????? "Pattern of misconduct" for medical issues? Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120012239
Records show he completed a medical examination on 26 February 2010; however, this report is not available. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) governs the evaluation for physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. There is no evidence to show he could not perform his duties while on active duty and he was never referred for physical disability processing.
ARMY | DRB | CY2015 | AR20150003027
Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights. After examining the applicants record of service, the documents and the issues submitted with the application, there are several mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge to honorable for the following reasons: a. BOARD DETERMINATION AND DIRECTED ACTION: After carefully examining the applicants record of service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001589
Records show he served in Iraq during the following periods: * 6 February to 3 July 2003 * 21 October 2005 to 20 October 2006 * 8 June 2008 to 4 September 2009 3. It was concluded that the applicants mild sleep apnea that corrects to a normal AHI and Epworth Score with CPAP meets Army retention standards IAW AR 40-501, chapter 3-41c. He reported headaches at a pain level of 6/10, which improved to 3/10 with Maxalt medication.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002837
On 3 September 2014 in view of the foregoing information, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations, and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged UOTHC and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional...
ARMY | DRB | CY2015 | AR20150000578
The evidence contained in the applicants service record indicates on 16 August 2006, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12a, AR 635-200, by reason of a pattern of minor disciplinary infractions. The separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Army policy states that an under other...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150009672
However, the Board did not consider PTSD as a factor at the time because his record was void of any evidence and he did not provide any evidence to show he was diagnosed with PTSD and/or any other psychiatric conditions or disorders. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002724
On 13 August 2010, the applicant did not concur with the findings and requested a formal hearing. Since his diabetes was controlled by medication and his sleep apnea was found to be medically acceptable, there is insufficient evidence on which to add diabetes and sleep apnea as unfitting conditions. It is acknowledged the DVA has granted him a proposed 50% disability rating for obstructive sleep apnea and 20% rating for diabetes mellitus, type 2.