Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/12/08	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge based on the merits of the overall length (8 years) and the quality of his service, in which he achieved the rank of sergeant first class (SFC).  Aditionally, he states his combat duty, diagnosis of PTSD, family problems, and knee injury, mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record.  
For additional information see DD Form 293 and supporting documents submitted by the applicant and/or his counsel.

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: 080211
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 080411   Chapter: 14-12c    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (Serious Offense)	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: HHC, 3d Bde Cbt Team (Heavy), Fort Hood, TX 

Time Lost: AWOL for 206 days (061004-070423), surrendered;  confinement for 141 days (070829-080116).  Total time lost is 347 days.

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None in the record.  However, the applicant was reduced in rank from SGT/E-5 to SPC/E-4 as indicated by his court martial proceedings.  He achieved the rank of SGT/E-5 on 1 March 2005 and by the time his court martial charges are filed he was a Specialist/E-4.

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 070829, SPCM, for being AWOL (061004-070423), and missing movement (061006), confinement for 5 months.

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  24
Current ENL Date: 050302    Current ENL Term: 6 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 01Mos, 27Days ?????
Total Service:  		07 Yrs, 07Mos, 05Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 990930-000418/HD
                                       RA 000419-020124/HD
                                       RA 020125-030130/HD
                                       RA 030131-050301/HD
Highest Grade: E-5		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 19D10/Cavalry Scout   GT: 86   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: SWA   Combat: Iraq (dates not in file)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM,  NDSM, GWOTSM, GWOTEM, AGCM-2, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Burnett, TX
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed.




VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 5 February 2008, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—for having been convicted by a Special Court Martial on 28-29 August 2007, for being absent without leave (061004-070423) and for missing movement (061006), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  On 8 February 2008, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, unconditionally waived his right to an administrative separation board, 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.  On 19 February 2008, 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.  The applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the former Soldier’s 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 his 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. 
       
       Furthermore, the record does not support the issue that the applicant suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and the evidence he has submitted is not medical in nature.  The applicant provided an extract of his court martial proceedings that indicate that he contacted Doctor A. from Darnall Army Community Hospital, in October 2006, and asked for help.  The statement by Doctor A. further indicates that the applicant did not want to deploy, was aware of his AWOL status, and that prior to October of 2006, there was no mention of PTSD or anxiety in his medical records.  The record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted by the applicant, that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.
       
       The analyst noted the applicant’s issue about his family problems and determined that he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief, without committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review.
       
       Additionally, the record does not contain any evidence that the applicant achieved the rank of Sergeant First Class/E-7, as contended by the applicant’s counsel.  He achieved the rank of Sergeant/E-5 and as a result of a UCMJ action which is contained the record, he was demoted to SPC/E-4. 
       
       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: 17 May 2010         Location: Washington, D.C.

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: [redacted]

Witnesses/Observers: None 

Exhibits Submitted: Attorney letter dated 18 November 2009, selected pages of court martial proceedings (14 pages), revised DD Form 293, VA documents (12 pages), SF Form 513 (2 pages), correctional officer's job description, two certificates of training completion, code of ethics, copy of jailer's license, and two character reference letters.

VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
The Board acknowledged the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and noted the diagnosis of PTSD outlined in the documents submitted to the Board during the hearing.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the Board found that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  The Board concluded that 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 that complete their service successfully.

After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony 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 AR20090021656
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages