IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	12 June 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130008761
___________________________________________________________________________

Board Determination and Directed Action

After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.




      
      
      Presiding Officer
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Department of the Army Discharge Review Board in this case.

THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND STATEMENT:

1.  The applicant requests an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that several awards are missing from his DD Form 214.  Since his discharge, he has been diagnosed medically through the VA as suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and severe depression that he is just now being treated for; and understands that he should have received medical treatment after combat in Iraq.  He did his best for his country; however, he was mentally unsound during his discharge and still is.  He is currently homeless and needs help.  
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			22 October 2012
b. Discharge Received:			General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				17 February 2005
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		Misconduct, Commission of A Serious 									Offense, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, JKQ, 								RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:				Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st 						Battalion, 9th Field Artillery Regiment, Home 							Detachment, Fort Stewart, GA		
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		19 September 2002, 6 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:		2 years, 3 months, 15 days
h. Total Service:				2 years, 3 months, 15 days
i. Time Lost:					41 days
j. Previous Discharges:			None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		13B10 Cannon Crewmember
m. GT Score:					110
n. Education:					HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:				NIF
p. Combat Service:				NIF	
q. Decorations/Awards:			NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, PUC
r. Administrative Separation Board: 		No
s. Performance Ratings:			None
t. Counseling Statements:			Yes
u. Prior Board Review:				No



SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 September 2002, for a period of 6 years.  He was 19 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  His record does not reflect any overseas assignments; he completed 2 years, 3 months, and 15 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  On 19 January 2005, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, Commission of a Serious Offense. Specifically for:

	a.  failing to report on several occasions
	b.  being AWOL (040630-040702) and (040903-040917)

2.  Based on the above misconduct, the commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

3.  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 waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 28 January 2005, the separation authority approved and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  

5.  The applicant was separated on 17 February 2005, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKQ, and an RE code of 3.               

6.  The applicant's record shows he was absent without leave (AWOL) during two periods of      4 August 2004 through 1 September 2004 and 3 September 2004 through 17 September 2004.  He surrendered and returned to military control.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  The results of a Summary Court-Martial dated, 16 December 2004 that shows the applicant was found guilty of the following: (a) failure to report on 7 occasions (040616), (040630), (040706), (040712), (040716), (040719), and (041014); and (b) AWOL from 3 September 2004 to 17 September 2004.  The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, confinement for 25 days, and restriction to the limits of Fort Stewart, GA for 5 days.  The court-martial indicates the applicant was found not guilty of being AWOL 4 August 2004 to 1 September 2004; although, the dates are reflected on the DD Form 214 as lost time.

2.  A Confinement Order dated, 16 December 2004, which shows the sentence was adjudged.
3.  An Article 15, dated 2 March 2004, without authority, failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (040105), (040107), (040108), and (040112); having received a lawful order to get dressed and go to work, willfully disobeyed the same (040108).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $586 pay per month for two months, 45 days of extra duty and restriction, (FG). 

4.  Nine negative counseling statements dated between 16 June 2004 and 14 October 2004, for multiple counts of failure to report, missing formation multiple times.
      
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

 The applicant provided a DD Form 149, medical progress notes, and a DD Form 214. 

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None were provided by the applicant. 

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 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 being absent 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.   

2.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, 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.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

3.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that 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.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.





DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered.  However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, his military records, the documents and the issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  

2.  The record confirms 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.  It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  By his misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality his service below that meriting a general or a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by a Summary Court-Martial, and an Article 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

3.  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.  

4.  The applicant contends he suffers from PTSD and depression that the Veterans Administration is treating.  However, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  The record shows that on 25 October 2004, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong.  It appears the applicant’s chain of command determined that he knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation.  Further, there are many Soldiers with the same condition that completed their service successfully.

5.  The applicant contends that he should have been medically treated and medical issues contributed to his discharge from the Army.  However, the service record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  Further, the record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service with either medical limitation or medication.  

6.  The applicant contends that he is homeless and an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better assistance.  However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining or enhancing any type of benefits.

7.  The applicant contends that there are multiple awards missing from his DD Form 214.  However, the applicant’s requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of this Board.  

8.  The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.  

9.  Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief.  

SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing: Records Review		  Date:  12 June 2013         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No 

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Board Vote:
Character Change:  0	No Change:  5
Reason Change:	0	No Change:  5
(Board member names available upon request)

Board Action Directed:
Issue a new DD Form 214:		No
Change Characterization to:	No Change
Change Reason to:			No Change
Change Authority for Separation:	NA
Change RE Code to:		NA
Grade Restoration to:		NA
Other:					NA










Legend:
AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record	FG - Field Grade	IADT – Initial Active Duty Training	 	RE - Reentry
AWOL - Absent Without Leave	GD - General Discharge	NA - Not applicable	SCM- Summary Court Martial
BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge	HS - High School	NIF - Not in File	SPCM - Special Court Martial
CG - Company Grade Article 15	HD - Honorable Discharge	OAD - Ordered to Active Duty	UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge  
CID - Criminal investigation Department	MP – Military Police	OMPF - Official Military Personnel File	UOTHC - Under Other Than                           			               Honorable Conditions


ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont)		AR20130008761



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1