Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2010/10/19	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that after his service in Iraq he became suicidal, developed PTSD, was denied help by his unit, and went AWOL.  He requests an upgrade to honorable in order to be eligible to receive his GI Bill benefits and secure a better job.  He is now very successful in the civilian sector as he has his own business and receives the highest customer ratings.

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: 050113
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 050216   Chapter: 14-12b    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: 8th OD Co, Fort Bragg, NC 

Time Lost: 2 days, AWOL (040622-040623), returned to unit.

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 040630, AWOL (040621-040624), reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $669, 45 days of extra duty and 45 days of suspended restriction (FG)

The record also shows the applicant received another company grade Article 15 for theft and disrespect.

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  18
Current ENL Date: 010820    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  Retained in service for 181 days for the Convenienece of the Goverment
Current ENL Service: 	03 Yrs, 05Mos, 25Days ?????
Total Service:  		03 Yrs, 05Mos, 25Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 55B10/Ammunition Spc   GT: 118   EDU: GED   Overseas: SWA   Combat: Iraq x 2 (030403-040402 and 041102-041202)
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: Owns his own business and is very successful, enrolled in school and is pursuing a degree in nursing.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 13 January 2005, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of pattern of misconduct, for being AWOL (040621-040626), stealing two compact disks and three rolls of film from AAFES, and for being disrespectful to an NCO, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  
       
       On 19 January 2005, the applicant 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 waiving further rehabilitation. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed elimination action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       On 27 January 2005, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.
       
       The record contains a Bar to Reenlistment dated 8 December 2004.

       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, the documents, and the issues submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors which would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  
       
       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 repeated incidents of 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.  
       
       The applicant contends that he was a good Soldier, served in Iraq twice but developed PTSD and when his unit did not help him, he went AWOL.  The analyst acknowledges the applicant’s in-service accomplishments and considered the quality of his service during the initial portion of the enlistment under review which included combat service in Iraq.  However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge as shown by the repeated incidents of misconduct and by the multiple negative counseling statements contained in his service record.  
       
       The applicant contends that he is entitled to an upgrade of his discharge because of mitigating circumstances which contributed to his misconduct.  Specifically, he claims post-traumatic stress disorder resulted in his going AWOL and ultimately in his discharge.  The analyst noted the PTSD diagnosis contained in the record.  However, in review of the applicant's entire service record, the analyst found that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  The record shows that on 6 August 2004, the applicant underwent a mental evaluation which indicates that he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong.  The analyst concluded that just because the applicant suffers from PTSD does not mean he doesn't know the difference between right and wrong or that he did not have control over his behavior.  There are many Soldiers with the same condition that complete their service successfully. While the applicant may believe his stress at home and work was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief through his chain of command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers.  Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct.  
       
       Further, 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.  The evidence of record shows that the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishment.  The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts.
       
       The applicant also contends that the narrative reason for his discharge should be changed.  However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200 with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Pattern of Misconduct", and the separation code is "JKA."  Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be entered exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes.  The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized.  There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation.  
       
       Additionally, the analyst noted the applicant's issues about his desire to have better job opportunities and the benefits of the GI Bill.  However, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  Additionally, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or 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 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: 4 April 2011         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: None 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 214, customer ratings, letters of recommendation (3), certificate of recognition, and a self-authored statement.

VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
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



































Legend:
AWOL    	Absent Without Leave		GCM   General Court Martial	NA   Not applicable			SCM	Summary Court Martial
BCD   	Bad Conduct Discharge	GD      General Discharge	NIF   Not in the file			SPCM	Special Court Martial
CG 	Company Grade Article 15	HD      Honorable Discharge	OAD   Ordered to Active Duty		UNC	Uncharacterized Discharge  
DD 	Dishonorable Discharge	HS       High School Graduate	OMPF   Official Military Personnel File	UOTH  	Under Other Than Honorable 
FG	Field Grade Article 15		IADT   Initial Active Duty Training	RE     Reentry Code				Conditions 

ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20100026094
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 4 of 4 pages