IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	27 June 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20140007833
___________________________________________________________________________

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 discharge from general, under honorable conditions to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, his service in Afghanistan is the underlining factor relating to his misconduct and discharge.  He contends he is a disabled combat veteran who suffers with PTSD/Bipolar; which were untreated mental illness/disorders.  Since his discharge he has suffered and lived a very complicated life due to his medical issues, but has been an active member in the veteran community through the DAV.  He also contends he has been honorably discharge twice and has completed periods of service honorably as a combat veteran of Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom.  He has made major strives to be an asset to his country; however, circumstances have dictated the ending results.  He contends he is a good person who has been a byproduct of war and now since his discharge he has undergone treatment, therapy, and is now taking medication under a doctor's care.  He is a better person and is living a better life.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		30 April 2014
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			3 November 2005
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200 							Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			B Co, 864th EN Bn, Fort Lewis, WA
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	18 February 2005, 4 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:	8 months, 16 days
h. Total Service:			8 years, 11 months, 8 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		USAR-960716-960826/NA										RA-960827-991110/HD										USARCG-991111-041018/HD									(Break-in Service)
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-5
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	21W10, Carpentry/Masonry Specialist
m. GT Score:				93
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			Southwest Asia
p. Combat Service:			Afghanistan (050329-050927)
q. Decorations/Awards:		ARCOM, AGCM, ACM, NDSM, ASR, 								AFRM-w/M Device, GWOTEM, GWOTSM
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		Yes
t. Counseling Statements:		Yes
u. Prior Board Review:			No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:

The applicant enlisted in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) on 16 July 1996 for a period of eight years.  He was discharged from the USAR on 26 August 1996, and enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 August 1996, for a period of 4 years.  He was discharged from the Regular Army on 10 November 1999, and transferred to the USARCG.  He was discharged from the USAR on 18 October 2004 with an honorable discharge.  The applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army on 18 February 2005, for a period of 4 years.  He was 29 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  His record indicates he served in Afghanistan; achieved the rank of SGT/E-5; and received several awards to include an ARCOM and an AGCM.  He was serving at Fort Lewis, WA when his separation was initiated.  He completed 8 years, 11 months, and 8 days of total military service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 12 August 2005, 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 (serious offense) for being found guilty of being absent without authority on three separate accounts, being disrespectful to NCOs, assaulting a NCO, and for being found guilty of four counts of failure to obey other lawful orders.

2.  Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended an under other than honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights.

3.  On 20 August 2005, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions and did not submit a statement on 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 of the separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

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

5.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 3 November 2005, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct (serious offense), with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKQ and an RE code of 3. 

6.  The applicant’s service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  A Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 24 June 2005, which indicates the applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with disturbance of conduct, personality disorder NOS, narcissistic and antisocial features.  However, it was determined the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings against him and he was mentally responsible.  It was also determined the applicant had the full capacity to understand right from wrong and to adhere to the rights of others.

2.  Article 15, imposed on 1 August 2005, for the failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x 3 (050622 and 050624 x2), being disrespectful in language toward SFC R.K.J, a noncommissioned officer (050623), assaulting a noncommissioned officer (050624), disobeying a lawful order from SFC R.K.J, (050623), 1SG E.R., (050624),and CPT B.E., x 2 (050624).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-4 and forfeiture of $900.00 per month for two months (FG).

3.  Four counseling statements, dated between 7 June 2005 and 24 June 2005, for disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer (7 June 2005) and being disrespectful to a senior noncommissioned officer, 24 June 2005.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, 25 April 2014, a copy of his Department of Veterans Affairs rating decision, dated 26 November 2013 with a temporary evaluation of 100 percent, and a copy of his DD Form 214 for the period of service under review.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant states in effect, since his discharge he has been an active member in the veteran community through the DAV as a life member and volunteer his time helping other veterans who are disabled.

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.

ANALYST’S 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 the misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by a Article 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and several negative counseling statements.

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’s post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record and the reasons for the discharge these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  

5.  The applicant contends his misconduct was the result of his untreated medical issues of PTSD and being Bipolar.  The applicant's contentions were noted; however, his report of mental status evaluation, dated 24 June 2005, indicated he was initially presented to Mental Health on 22 June 2005 with homicidal ideation.  He was offered treatment services but he did not believe treatment would be beneficial.  Due to his stated ideation he was command referred to MH for evaluation of homicidal ideation.  Prior to the scheduled appointment he allegedly assaulted a NCO, it was determine by the social work officer his behavior was not due to a mental disorder and was a result of his own misconduct.

6.  Also the independent documents submitted by the applicant from the Department of Veterans Administration indicating he was assigned a temporary evaluation of 100 percent for his PTSD is noted.  However, the fact the Veterans Administration has granted the applicant a temporary evaluation for a medical condition suffered while on active duty does not support a conclusion that this condition rendered the applicant unfit for further service at the time of his discharge processing.  The available medical evidence in the record is void of any indication that the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during his discharge processing that would have warranted his separation processing through medical channels.  

7.  Furthermore, the record shows that on 24 June 2005, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and he had the full capacity to understand right from wrong and to adhere to the rights of others.

8.  The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  The character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall service record.

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:  27 June 2014        Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No

Counsel:  None

Witnesses/Observers:  No

Board Vote:
Character Change:  2	No Change:  3
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)		AR20140007833



Page 6 of 7 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1