1.	APPLICANT’S NAME:      

	a.	Application Date:  5 June 2014

	b.	Date Received:     16 June 2014

	c.	Counsel:                None

2.   REQUEST, REASON, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION:  The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade.  The Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge.  The applicant states, in effect, he was the definition of a great Soldier.  He had three deployments to Iraq.  He became dependent on alcohol and drugs to cope with his combat experiences.  He was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and received no help.  His discharge prevents him from getting medical treatment with the VA for his condition.  In a record review conducted at Arlington, Virginia, on 11 September 2015, and by a        5-0 vote, the Board denied the request finding the separation was both proper and equitable
	(Board member names available upon request.)

3.	DISCHARGE DETAILS:

	a.	Reason/Authority/Codes/Characterization:  Court-Martial Other/AR 635-200, Chapter 3/JJD/RE-4/Bad-Conduct Discharge.

	b.	Date of Discharge:  1 February 2008

	c.	Separation Facts:  

		(1)	Date of Notification of Intent to Separate:  

		(2)	Basis for Separation:  The applicant was found guilty by a Special Court-Martial of the following offenses:  

			Without authority, absenting himself from his unit (AWOL) x 6 from (9 November 2005-18 November 2005), (19 November 2005-23 November 2005), (29 November 2005-11 January 2006), (19 January 2006-2 February 2006), (3 February 2006-26 April 2006) and (27 April 2006-1 May 2006),

			Operating a vehicle in a reckless manner while drunk (27 August 2005), 

			Wrongfully using cocaine x 3 between (6 October 2005 and 16 October 2005), (8 November 2005 and 18 November 2005) and (22 January 2006 and 2 February 2006), and 

			On 8 August 2006, he was sentenced to reduction to E-1, confinement for 6 months and a bad conduct discharge.

		(3)	Recommended Characterization:  None

		(4)	Legal Consultation Date:  8 November 2006

		(5)	Administrative Separation Board:  None

		(6)	Separation Decision Date/Characterization:  1 February 2008/ Bad Conduct Discharge

4.	SERVICE DETAILS:

	a.	Date/Period of Enlistment:  4 May 2004/5 years

	b.	Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score:  21 years/GED Certificate/88

	c.	Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service:  SPC/E-4/92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist/5 years, 1 month and 16 days
  
	d.	Prior Service/Characterizations:  RA (19 February 2002-3 May 2004)/HD
  
	e.	Overseas Service/Combat Service:  None
  
	f.	Awards and Decorations:  AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM
  
	g.	Performance Ratings:  None
  
	h.	Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record:  A SPCM dated 8 August 2006, for being found guilty of without authority, absenting himself from his unit (AWOL) x 6 from (9 November 2005-18 November 2005), (19 November 2005-23 November 2005), (29 November 2005-               11 January 2006), (19 January 2006-2 February 2006), (3 February 2006-26 April 2006) and (27 April 2006-1 May 2006); operating a vehicle in reckless manner while drunk (27 August 2005), and wrongfully using cocaine x 3 between (6 October 2005-16 October 2005),                  (8 November 2005-18 November 2005) and (22 January 2006-2 February 2006).  He was sentenced to reduction to E-1, confinement for 6 months and a bad conduct discharge.

	i.	Lost Time:  The applicant was AWOL for 155 days.  Also he was in military confinement for 144 days.  He had a total of 299 days of lost time and was placed on excess leave for 495 days from (25 September 2006-1 February 2008).

	j.	Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health:  The applicant submitted a letter with his application dated 6 June 2009, from the US Marine Corp Brig Clinic, which indicated he met the full criteria as found in the DSM-IV-TR for PTSD.

5.	APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE:  A DD Form 149, letter, US Marine Corps, VA Form 21-4142 (Authorization and consent to Release Information to the Department of Veterans Affairs-VA, two pages).

6.	POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS:  None provided by the applicant.



7.	REGULATORY CITATION(S):  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 3, Section IV establishes policy and procedures for separating members with a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge; and provides that a Soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial; and that the appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed.  

Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the ADRB to be established facts, issues relating to the applicant’s innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief.  

With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the ADRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency.  Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.  

8.	DISCUSSION OF ISSUE(S):  The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade.  The Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge.  The applicant’s record of service, issues and the documents submitted with his application was carefully reviewed.

The service record indicates the applicant was adjudged guilty by a court-martial and the sentence was approved by the convening authority.  Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process.

The Board is empowered to change the discharge only if clemency is determined to be appropriate.  Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed.

The applicant seeks relief contending, he was the definition of a great Soldier.  He had three deployments to Iraq and became dependent on alcohol and drugs to cope with his combat experiences.  He was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and received no help.  His discharge prevents him from getting medical treatment with the VA for his condition.

The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of his court-martial proceeding were carefully considered. 

The applicant further contends he had three deployments to Iraq.  The applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) does not substantiate he had three deployments to Iraq and he did not provide any evidence to support this contention.

The applicant also contends He became dependent on alcohol and drugs to cope with his combat experiences.  The applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the judicial action under review.




The applicant additionally contends he was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and received no help.  The independent post service document from the US Marine Corps Brig is acknowledged, which indicated he met the full criteria as found in the DSM-IV-TR for PTSD. 

Lastly, the applicant contends his discharge prevents him from getting medical treatment with the VA for his condition.  Eligibility for veteran's benefits (i.e., medical) 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.

The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

9.	BOARD ACTION DIRECTED:

	a.	Issue a new DD-214:  		No

	b.	Change Characterization to:  	No Change

	c.	Change Reason to:  			No Change

	d.	SPD/RE Code Change to:  		No Change

	e.	Restoration to Grade:  		NA


Authenticating Official:




COL, US ARMY
Presiding Officer 
Army Discharge Review Board









Legend:
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  
FG - Field Grade	IADT – Initial Active Duty Training	RE - Reentry	                Honorable Conditions 	

ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

AR20140010894

1