IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	20 June 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130020678
___________________________________________________________________________

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 fully honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he suffers from several medical conditions to include, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), chronic depression and anxiety, bi-polar type II and a compressed disk.  He states after his return from deployment to Iraq he had a lot of issues to deal with which contributed to his discharge from the military.  He contends he never had any problems until after his deployment.  He felt overloaded and needed to get away.
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			18 November 2013
b. Discharge Received:			General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				18 November 2009
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200,
Chapter 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:				HHC, 1st Brigade Combat Team (Rear)
(Provisional), Fort Bragg, NC
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		7 September 2006/4 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:		2 years, 8 months, 24 days
h. Total Service:				2 years, 9 months, 1 day
i. Time Lost:					168 days
j. Previous Discharges:			DEP, 060830-060906, NA
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			E-2
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		25U1P, Signal Systems Specialist
m. GT Score:					NIF
n. Education:					HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:				SWA
p. Combat Service:				Iraq, (070615-080719)
q. Decorations/Awards:			NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 		NA
s. Performance Ratings:			NA
t. Counseling Statements:			NIF
u. Prior Board Review:				No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 September 2006, for a period of 4 years.  He was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He served in Iraq and completed 2 years, 9 months, and 1 day of active duty service.  When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  On 26 October 2009, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, misconduct (serious offense).  Specifically for:

     a.  being AWOL from 28 March 2009 until 16 September 2009.
  
     b.  behaving with disrespect toward a commissioned officer and being disrespectful in language to a NCO.

2.  Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.

3.  On 26 October 2009, the applicant waived his right to consult with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

4.  On 29 October 2009, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  

5.  The applicant was separated on 18 November 2009, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, for misconduct (serious offense) 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 the period
28 March 2009 through 15 September 2009.  The applicant returned to his unit.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  DD Form 2329 (Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial), dated 30 September 2009, reflects the applicant was found guilty of being AWOL and being disrespectful toward a commissioned officer and NCO.  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $1,045 pay per month for one month, and confinement for 30 days.

2.  DA Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 23 September 2009, reflects the applicant was charged with being AWOL from 28 March 2009 until 16 September 2009; behaving disrespectful toward CPT K; and being disrespectful in language toward SSG B.

3.  DA Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 28 August 2009, reflects on 28 March 2009, the applicant without authority and intent to remain away permanently from his unit did absent himself in desertion.

4.  Three DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Actions), reflect the applicant’s duty status changed from present for duty (PDY) to AWOL on 28 March 2009; from AWOL to dropped from rolls (DFR) on 27 April 2009; and, DFR to PDY on 16 September 2009.
      
5.  A MEDCOM Form 4038 (Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation), dated 
18 September 2009, reflects the applicant had a clear and normal thought process and was mentally responsible.  He was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder.  He did not exhibit symptoms or have a diagnosis of PTSD.  In 2008, the applicant underwent treatment for a Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) but was never cleared.  However, there was no evidence of an emotional or mental disorder of psychiatric significance at the time to warrant disposition through medical channels; therefore the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command including an administrative separation board.  

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant submitted a DD Form 293, dated 28 April 2013, a DD Form 214, a letter from DAV, dated 5 November 2012, and a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs, dated 3 September 2013.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant did not provide any in support of his application.  

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.  The misconduct diminished the applicant’s quality of service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by a conviction under the proceedings of a summary court-martial.

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 the Veterans Administration has granted him a service connected disability for PTSD.  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 18 September 2009, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible and his thought content was clear.  It appears the applicant’s chain of command determined that although he was suffering from an adjustment disorder, 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 further contends he had a lot of mental issues that affected his life; when he went AWOL; he had an overload and just needed to get away being through Iraq and having problems.  He had a rough deployment.  While the applicant may believe his mental issues at work was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief from his issues through his 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.  

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

7.  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:  20 June 2014        Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No

Counsel:  None

Witnesses/Observers:  No

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)		AR20130020678



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1