Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/06/15	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states:  "Before I was discharged I had multiple Article 15 proceedings. I had been sent to see a doctor and was being prescribed medication for depression, but I never took it when I should have and so the treatment was not successful. As time went on my problems got worse, and I was often not able to appear for formation on time.  After I was discharged, I had similar problems in the civilian world. I was never able to really function, and after a few years of mental break-downs my mother took me to a mental health facility where I was finally diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome, severe depression, and PTSD resulting from an abusive father. I now live in a group home, and the structure of the group home with the staff making sure that I take my medication and take care of the things an adult should take care of has improved my situation tremendously.  My discharge should not have been a general discharge, it should have been a medical discharge or an honorable discharge. The Army doctor never correctly diagnosed my condition, instead I was suffering constant punishment for things that were not under my control. I respectfully request that my discharge be changed, so that I have the advantages given to a Veteran of the Armed Forces. If necessary I will show up at a Board accompanied by my therapist to discuss the problems.  Thank you very much for your consideration."  He provides several medical documents for the Board's consideration.

II.  Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed?	     
Tender Offer:   NA

See Attachments:  Legal     Medical     Minority Opinion     Exhibits 

III.  Discharge Under Review
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: 	   Date: 990310
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 990420   Chapter: 14-12a    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKN   Unit/Location: F Co, 58th Avn Rgt, Fort Rucker, AL 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 981209, failure to report on two occasions ( 981125 and 981201), reduction to E-1 (suspended), forfeiture of $242, 10 days of extra duty and restriction (CG)

990303, failure to report (990203), reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $224, 14 days of extra duty and restriction (CG)

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  17
Current ENL Date: 970801    Current ENL Term: 5 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 08Mos, 20Days ?????
Total Service:  		01 Yrs, 08Mos, 20Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-2		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 35D10/ATC EQ RPR   GT: 120   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Purcellville, VA
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 10 March 1999, 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 misconduct—for numerous minor infractions, for showing no regard to comply with directives from his leaders, repeated lateness or absences from formations or his place of duty, for receiving a summarized and two company grade Articles 15 for being late eleven times, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  He consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  On 9 April 1999, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 of this regulation establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed.  Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate, however, a general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.  

       c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:  
       After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records, and the issue and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  
       
       There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as the infractions of discipline, the extent thereof, and the seriousness of the offenses.  The analyst determined that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  By his misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of the former Soldier’s service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  
       
       The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.  
       
       The applicant contends that he was suffering from depression, was under medication and suffered from PTSD and that he was not diagnosed properly while on active duty.  The medical documents he provided with his application dated 8 January 2003, indicate a diagnosis of Asperger’s disorder, a major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and avoidant personality disorder with schizoid features.  It also shows that the applicant has a strong ability to understand information and employ common sense to solve problems and answer questions, as seen in his comprehension subtest which would indicate that he is able to distinguish right from wrong.  The record does not support the applicant’s contention, that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  His repeated incidents of misconduct and minor infractions while at Fort Rucker are the cause of his discharge action.  Additionally, the medical document he provided with his application indicate that his PTSD was caused by conditions in his childhood and prior to entry into the Army.  However, just because someone is suffering from PTSD does not mean that they don't know the difference between right and wrong or that they do not have control over their behavior.  There are many Soldiers with the same condition which they acquire while in a combat environment that complete their service successfully and without incidents of misconduct.  
       
       The analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Furthermore, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include medical and educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.
       
       Therefore, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief. 

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 26 March 2010         Location: Washington, D.C.

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: NA

VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.  
        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 0    No change 5
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)
								         EDGAR J. YANGER			 
								         Colonel, U.S. Army
X.  Board Action Directed					         President, Army Discharge Review Board
Issue a new DD Form 214  					
Change Characterization to: 			         
Change Reason to: NA
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090010300
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages