IN THE CASE OF: Mr.
BOARD DATE: 9 January 2015
CASE NUMBER: AR20140002568
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.
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 APPLICANTS REQUEST AND STATEMENT:
1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable.
2. The applicant states, in effect, he was diagnosed with a mild depression disorder prior to his deployment to Afghanistan. He states while deployed, he took on the responsibilities of the acting communications NCOIC for his unit. He states upon the arrival of SFC R, he began to have ongoing conflict with him. He requested to be transferred to another unit but was told by SFC R that the only way out of the unit was to be separated. He states once SFC R became the acting first sergeant upon return from deployment, the conflicts escalated and in addition to the paranoia, humiliation, depression, sleep disorder, exclusion, and ambiguous job demands he began to feel excluded, unable to defend himself or focus on effectively completing tasks. He contends he was further damaged emotionally, mentally, and physically. He contends he was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and his relationship with SFC R escalated even more. He states he disrespected SFC R in front of the CSM and was recommended for separation. He takes full responsibility for his actions and has taken several ongoing counseling sessions to help him learn how to control his long-term issues. He states he has successfully maintained employment since being discharged and hopes to continue to further his education.
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:
a. Application Receipt Date: 5 February 2014
b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge: 6 June 2013
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter
14-12b. JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment: HHC, 504th Battlefield Surveillance Brigade,
Fort Hood, TX
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 2 September 2010/4 years
g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 9 months, 5 days
h. Total Service: 4 years, 10 months, 7 days
i. Time Lost: None
j. Previous Discharges: USAR, 080731-090815, NA
IADT, 090603-090816, NIF
USAR, 090817-100901, HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty: 25U1O, Signal Support Systems Specialist
m. GT Score: NIF
n. Education: HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service: SWA
p. Combat Service: Afghanistan (110619-120617)
q. Decorations/Awards: AAM, NDSM, ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, ASR,
OSR, NATO MDL
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 Army Reserve (USAR) on 31 July 2008, for a period of 8 years. He reenlisted into the Regular Army on 2 September 2010, for a period of 4 years. He was 20 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He served in Afghanistan and earned an AAM. He completed a total of 4 years, 10 months, 7 days of military service.
SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:
1. The applicants service record is void of the complete facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicants signature.
2. The DD Form 214 indicates that on 6 June 2013, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The DD Form 214 also shows a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JKA and a reentry (RE) code of 3.
3. On 16 May 2013, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed the applicant be discharged from the military with a characterization of service as general, under honorable conditions.
4. On 29 May 2013, HQs, III Corps and Fort Hood, Fort Hood, TX, Orders Number 149-0145, discharged the applicant from the Army effective 6 June 2013.
5. The applicants available record does not show any recorded actions under the UCMJ, unauthorized absences or time lost.
EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT’S RECORD:
1. Discharge Orders Number 149-0145, dated 29 May 2013.
2. Retirement Points Details reflects the applicant served on active duty for training from 3 June 2009 until 15 August 2009.
3. IWS reflects on 16 August 2009, the applicant was returned to the Reserve Component Control after initial active duty for training.
4. Discharge Orders Number D-09-015560, dated 7 September 2010, discharged the applicant from the USAR effective 1 September 2010, with an honorable discharge.
5. DA Form 3286, dated 2 September 2010, reflects the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years.
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:
The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 2 February 2014, a DD Form 214, medical records dated between June 2011 through 28 May 2013, and a split night polysomnography report, dated 10 October 2012.
The applicant did not provide any in support of his application.
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 members 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 Soldiers separation specifically allows such characterization.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
1. The applicants request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicants record of service, his military records, the issues and documents submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge.
2. The applicants record is void of the complete facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214, which was authenticated by the applicant’s signature. This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and government regularity is presumed in the discharge process.
3. The DD Form 214 also indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b by reason of a pattern of misconduct, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Barring evidence to the contrary, the presumption of government regularity prevails as it appears that all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.
4. The applicant’s contention that he was suffering from PTSD was carefully considered. The applicants service record contains documentation that supports on 17 May 2013, he was diagnosed with service-connected 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. It appears the applicants chain of command determined that although he was suffering from PTSD, he knew the difference between what was right and wrong. There are many Soldiers with the same condition that completed their service successfully.
5. Further, the applicant provided evidence to support that on 8 March 2013 he was evaluated by a competent medical authority and psychiatrically cleared for administrative action deemed appropriate by his chain of command. He was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with depressed mood during this evaluation and as early as 30 November 2012.
6. The applicant contends he was dealing with increasing conflict with SFC R, a member of his NCO support channel, and disrespectfully expressed his anger in front of his unit CSM. However, 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. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge.
7. Moreover, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant’s quality of service. There is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. The applicants statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge.
8. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Boards consideration because they are not available in the official record.
9. Therefore, based on the available evidence and the government presumption of regularity, it appears the reason for discharge and the characterization of service are both proper and equitable, thus recommend the Board deny relief.
SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:
Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 9 January 2015 Location: Washington, DC
Did the Applicant Testify, NA
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
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) AR20140002568
Page 6 of 6 pages
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)
CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE