AR20140002776

IN THE CASE OF: Mr.

BOARD DATE: 9 January 2015

CASE NUMBER: AR20140002776
___________________________________________________________________________

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 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 has struggled and battled alcoholism due to the loss of seven fellow Soldiers, two that he knew personally which died in front of him. He contends he has been diagnosed and is being treated for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and has completed drug and alcohol classes. He is currently taking medication to control his PTSD. He takes full responsibility for his actions but not knowing the effects of alcoholism and PTSD caused his unprofessional behavior. He has served his country honorably in a time of war and should receive a discharge that reflects his accomplishments, not demise.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date: 7 February 2014
b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge: 11 November 2005
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Commission of a Serious
Offense), AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, JKQ,
RE-3
e. Unit of assignment: Alpha Company, 82nd Engineer Battalion,
APO AE, Germany
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 30 June 2005/2 years
g. Current Enlistment Service: 4 months, 12 days
h. Total Service: 4 years, 7 months, 22 days
i. Time Lost: None
j. Previous Discharges: RA (010320-050629), HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-5
l. Military Occupational Specialty: 21B10, Combat Engineer
m. GT Score: 99
n. Education: HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service: Germany, Kosovo, SWA
p. Combat Service: Iraq (040214-050310)
q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM-4, MUC, AGCM, NDSM, KCM,
NPDR, ASR, OSR-2, NATO MDL, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, CAB
r. Administrative Separation Board: NA
s. Performance Ratings: Yes
t. Counseling Statements: Yes
u. Prior Board Review: No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 March 2001, for a period of 5 years. He was 20 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He served in Germany, Kosovo and Iraq and earned an ARCOM and four AAMs. He completed 4 years, 7 months, and 22 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving in Germany.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1. On 7 November 2005, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, for misconduct (serious offense). Specifically for continuous involvement in alcohol related incidents and failing to be at his appointed place of duty.

2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

3. On 9 November 2005, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in 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 with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

4. On an unknown date, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation efforts and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

5. The applicant was separated on 11 November 2005, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKQ, and an RE code of 3.

6. The applicants record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT’S RECORD:

1. Several negative counseling statements, dated between 8 September 2005 through 31 October 2005, for failing to go or leave appointed place of duty x 4 (050908, 050909, 050921, and 051031), being drunk on duty x 2 (051028 x 2), recommendation for Chapter 14-12 separation (051023), failing to obey a lawful order and disrespect to an officer and NCO (050909).

2. Article 15, dated 14 October 2005, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty on eight occasions between 30 August 2005 and 19 September 2005. The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $167 pay per month for two months, and 45 days of extra duty and restriction (FG).

3. Article 15, dated 25 August 2005, for physically controlling a vehicle while drunk. The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-4, forfeiture of $938 pay per month for two months, and 30 days extra duty (FG).

4. Mental Status Evaluation, dated 1 November 2005, reflects the applicant had a clear and normal thought process, was able to distinguish the difference between right and wrong, was mentally responsible, and was diagnosed for alcohol abuse, probable dependence and occupational problems. The applicant was recommended for an inpatient Army Substance Abuse Program, if retained. There is no indication the applicant was screened for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or mild Traumatic Brain Injury.

5. Three NCOERs covering the period of September 2003 through April 2005, reflects the applicant was rated Fully Capable by his raters and received two 2/2 and a 3/3 rating from his senior raters for his Overall Performance/Overall Potential.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 30 January 2014 and a DD Form 214.

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 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, 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 applicants 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 applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicants record of service was marred by two Article 15s 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 applicants service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.

4. The applicant contends he has struggled and battled alcoholism. The fact the applicant suffered from alcoholism 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.

5. The applicant contends he was diagnosed with PTSD and is currently taking medication to control the symptoms. However, the service record contains no evidence of a PTSD diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. In fact, the record shows that on 1 November 2005, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong. 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.

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: 9 January 2015 Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify, NA

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA

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) AR20140002776

Page 5 of 6 pages

ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

1