1. APPLICANT’S NAME:      

	a.	Application Date:  18 February 2015

	b.	Date Received:      23 February 2015

	c.	Counsel:                Yes

2.   REQUEST, REASON, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION:  The applicant requests an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable.  The applicant states, in effect, he intends to seek employment in law enforcement.  He had a solid performance record in the military police.  He had a single incident of misconduct of driving under the influence.  His discharge is continuing punishment without justification.  He suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), began seeking treatment in Afghanistan and upon departing he ceased professional treatment and began self-medicating with alcohol.  His attempts to deal with his PTSD led to his problem drinking and ultimately the DUI resulting in his discharge.  He was granted a 30 percent disabling rating for PTSD by the VA.  He has discontinued his problem drinking.

In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, Virginia, on 28 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:  Misconduct (Serious Offense)/              AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c/JKQ/RE-3/General, Under Honorable Conditions

	b.	Date of Discharge:  9 June 2011

	c.	Separation Facts:  

		(1)	Date of Notification of Intent to Separate:  25 March 2011

		(2)	Basis for Separation:  The applicant was informed of the following reason for his discharge:  

                    Being apprehended for suspicion of driving under the influence (DUI) with a .164 percent BAC on 14 November 2010,

                    Receiving a CG Article 15 on 10 December 2010, for multiple violations of Article 86, UCMJ,
Disrespecting an NCO on 16 February 2011, and

                   Committing other offenses, such as reckless driving and failing to obey lawful orders.


		(3)	Recommended Characterization:  General, Under Honorable Conditions Discharge

		(4)	Legal Consultation Date:  29 March 2011

		(5)	Administrative Separation Board:  None

		(6)	Separation Decision Date/Characterization:  27 May 2011/General, Under Honorable Conditions Discharge.  Also, the separation authority reviewed both the administrative separation packet and the medical evaluation board proceedings pertaining to the applicant; he determined the applicant’s medical condition was not a direct or a substantial contributing cause of the conduct which led to the recommendation for administrative elimination. He also determined there are no other circumstances in this case warranting disability processing instead of further processing for administrative separation.

4.	SERVICE DETAILS:

	a.	Date/Period of Enlistment:  28 June 2007/5 years

	b.	Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score:  18 years/HS Graduate/90

	c.	Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service:  SPC/E-4/31B10, Military Police/3 years, 11 months and 11 days
  
	d.	Prior Service/Characterizations:  None
  
	e.	Overseas Service/Combat Service:  Germany/SWA/Afghanistan (27 March 2008-29 June 2009)
  
	f.	Awards and Decorations:  AGCM, NDSM, ACM-W/2CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATO MDL, CAB

	g.	Performance Ratings:  None
  
	h.	Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record:  CG Article 15 dated 10 December 2010, for without authority, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x3 on 
(3 November 2010 and 4 November 2010); reduction PV2/E-2 and an oral reprimand.

An administrative General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) dated 24 November 2010, for driving while intoxicated.

A Military Police Report dated 14 November 2010, indicates the applicant was under investigation for operating a vehicle while intoxicated and careless driving on post.

The applicant received numerous counseling statements for various acts of misconduct.

	i.	Lost Time:  None
  
	j.	Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health:  VA rating decision dated 20 December 2013, indicates the applicant was granted a 30 percent disabling rating for PTSD.

Memorandum for the Medical Board dated 13 January 2011, Diagnostic Variance Evaluation, rendered by a clinical psychologist indicates the compensation and pension examination by a VA clinic resulting in a diagnosis different from the Army’s behavioral health diagnosis, and it was referred for resolution of the variance.  Further, the applicant was diagnosed with “PTSD, mild” and anxiety disorder, and met retention standards.  The findings concluded the applicant’s condition existed prior to service, was aggravated by service and supported by a review of his records.

Reports of Behavioral Health Evaluation, dated (9 November 2010 and 1 December 2010), indicates an Axis 1 diagnosis of alcohol abuse and depression, alcohol abuse/dependence respectively; and the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command on both reports.

DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile) dated 10 March 2010, indicates the applicant had a temporary profile for chronic PTSD.

5.	APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE:  DD Form 293, VA rating decision (seven pages), Case Report and Directive (AR 2014003014, seven pages), Secretary of Defense Memorandum (two pages), with an attachment (two pages), DD Form 214, letter, Veterans Service Office, Ozaukee County, and a letter, Chief, Congressional Liaison and Inquires/with related congressional documents (sixteen pages).

6.	POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS:  The applicant states in his application he is pursuing a bachelor’s degree in justice and public policy.

7.	REGULATORY CITATION(S):  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.

Paragraph 14-12c states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial.

8.	DISCUSSION OF ISSUE(S):  The applicant requests an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable.  The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed.

The record confirms 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 (serious offense), the applicant marred the quality of his service.


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 seeking relief contends, he intends to seek employment in law enforcement.  The Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.

The applicant further contends he had a solid performance record in the military police.  The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents which caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered.

The applicant also contends he had a single incident of misconduct of driving under the influence.  Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization of service.

The applicant additionally contends his discharge is continuing punishment without justification.  Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates a Soldier may be separated when initially convicted by civil authorities, or when action is taken tantamount to a finding of guilty, if a punitive discharge authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts Martial or the sentence by civil authorities includes confinement for six months or more, without regard to suspension or probation.

The applicant contends he suffers from PTSD; began seeking treatment in Afghanistan and upon departing he ceased professional treatment and began self-medicating with alcohol.  He 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 separation action under review.

The applicant contends his attempts to deal with his PTSD led to his problem drinking and ultimately the DUI resulting in his discharge.  The applicant bears the burden of presenting credible evidence to support this contention.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention PTSD may have been the cause of his drinking problem and the DUI resulting in his discharge.

The applicant contends he was granted a 30 percent disabling rating for PTSD by the VA.  The post service PTSD diagnosis document by the VA is acknowledged granting the applicant a service connected disabling rating of 30 percent.

The applicant contends he has discontinued his problem drinking.  The applicant is to be commended for his effort.  This contention is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process.

The applicant’s post-service accomplishment has been noted as outlined on the application.




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

AR20150003269

1