Army under the microscope for mischaracterization of discharges

[chaplaincharlie]

Senate to investigate USA for mischaracterization of PTSD symptomology as misconduct.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/...arges-linking-ptsd-misconduct.html?ESRC=eb.nl

 

[scoutCC]

I never saw an instance where someone had behavior that was ok suddenly called misconduct just because someone had PTSD and might get a disability payment and someone wanted to make sure the PTSD diagnosis was tanked. Which is what this seems to be suggesting.

The problem is more about when can PTSD be used as a get out of jail free card. Some misconduct is likely related to PTSD, and the question becomes what is going to be more effective long term, punishing the misconduct or treating the underlying PTSD. This question is answered in a very inconsistent way across the Army, it really depends on the prejudices of the commander rather than the nature or degree of the misconduct. But not the prejudices of the commander towards disability payments, but really because there is some real inherent variability in how misconduct discharges are handled across the Army.

 

[chaplaincharlie]

I have treated people with PTSD so severe that what was asked of them was not in the realm of possibility. They became labeled as bad soldiers/airmen.... Then they were put under the microscope, received paperwork, followed by NJP, and discharge. The same thing has happened to people with TBI. PTSD/TBI, when severe, results in impairment. Impairment can be mislabeled as rebelliousness, lazy,....

 

[gsfowler]

I would have to second the chaplain's opinion. It is not up to the command to make a judgment regarding the mental fitness of a soldier. If they were subject matter experts on this, we would have far less suicide in the military, as the expert commanders would recognize the situation and intevene, thus saving lives.

The BOTTOM LINE is that the residuals of PTSD and/or other behavioral health diagnosis CAN contribute to a servicememeber violating UCMJ and being chaptered out.

There is a reason that there is a dual process.

I have seen many circumstances in which the commanders knew that the servicemembers suffered from the residuals of TBI or PTSD and THEY failed to refer them to get help, and subsequently chapter the servicemember out for misconduct.

The good Senator would not be investigating the service records of 22K individuals at the request of the Under Secretary of the Army if this was not the case.

I do not doubt that you were a great NCO @scoutCC, however I think you are overgeneralizing an issue without examining the facts.

Tell me this @scoutCC, you are a Unit Commander and your UMR has just been slashed by 50%. All of a sudden you are 50% over strength and unable to promote the "good" soldiers that you want to keep. If you only had the position, paragraph and line number.

You are in meetings with the brigade and they are telling you that you need to cut back, the power point slide pops up and there is a bar graph that shows how much $$$ is allocated to paying service members with a medical retirement, then the very next slide there is a bar graph that has zero on it, it says that if you discharge a soldier for misconduct, they are seperated without benefits.

Don't believe it will happen? It does, ask the Commander at Madigan Army Medical Center, this took place during a briefing under his watch.

 

[scoutCC]

First paragraph in the article:
U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown wants an investigation into reports the Army discharged more than 22,000 soldiers who had post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury for alleged "misconduct" after they returned home from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The misconduct in quotes, after the alleged, is purposeful. This is a statement that "misconduct" didn't happen. Things are being labelled misconduct that are not. I have never seen an example of this. I, like everyone in the military, have an opinion about PTSD. That isn't the point. Misconduct discharges are associated with real and actual misconduct.

Third paragraph in the article
"I have long argued that the military needs to do a better job treating the invisible wounds of war, such as PTSD/TBI," Portman said in an email. "I believe that punishing service members for misconduct without taking into account the mental health context that may have contributed to this behavior ignores the problem and could have long-term implications for the service members' care and treatment."

This already happens. BH pencil whips the hell out of PTSD/TBI. Commanders ask if its PTSD/TBI that is the problem, but BH almost always says its not the problem. SM is responsible for his actions, or something to that effect.

I could see a good case being made for chapter 14, or misconduct admin discharges, to get the same treatment as chapter 13, or failure to perform discharges. MEB has to finish before a determination is made. That doesn't sound like what they are looking into. It sounds like they are looking into if perfectly fine behavior is being labelled as misconduct. I doubt they will find many examples of that.

 

[gsfowler]

@scoutCC Would you agree that many circumstances of "misconduct" are subective? Do you honestly feel that military commanders support a fair an impartial medical evaluation board?

Servicemembers are being discharged on a regular basis for misconduct offfenses in which could potentially be linked to PTSD/TBI or any other organic brain disease.

A misconduct discharge can result from a pattern of minor disciplinary infractions, a serious military offense, or a conviction by civilian authorities. Common misconduct offenses include drug use and unauthorized absence.

What does not take place in the Army is effective counseling, with the "opportunity for repair". Rather than following the guidelines set forth in FM 6-22 Appendix B.

Developing a soldier is not easy, and many NCOs do not possess what it takes to do the job, however they may be a well liked person by their command, appear on the outside to say and do everything they are supposed to, however when push comes to shove, they will jump into "self-preservation mode" and turn against those who may be the least, the last and the lost in the military.

Having spent 2 years in an active duty WTU and 2.5 years in the CBWTU, I witnessed countless servicemembers chaptered out for patterns of misconduct which could have been attributed as a symptom of PTSD/TBI.

 

[chaplaincharlie]

A member fails to report for duty on time, is that misconduct? On the surface it appears to be misconduct.
A member fails to follow a TO, is that misconduct? On the surface it appears to be misconduct.

In world of criminal prosecution there is a concept called mens rea or mental culpability. A person must have, depending on the offense, have intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently committed the act.

If a member had an acute physical illness (heart attack, seizure,...) their absence from duty on time or failure to follow a TO would not be questioned. Change that to a mental illness and often leadership characterizes the act as willfulness, lazy.... If a member is incapability of remaining oriented then their actions are not misconduct, but a symptom of their illness.

 

[scoutCC]

It never happens that a Soldier does something stupid and then makes a beeline to BH? None of those instances are suspect?

I don't think any of this disputes the simple notion, misconduct discharges are for actual, observed, actions. Actions that are against the rules.

I'm sure that an example can be found of someone with PTSD that receives a misconduct discharge for relatively minor misbehavior. I'm equally sure an example of a misconduct discharge can be found for that same, relatively minor, misbehavior when the question of PTSD never came up. I can't argue much against there being some unfairness in misconduct discharges. There is a great deal of variability in the misconduct discharge process. Some are thrown under the bus for misconduct, and some skate by doing the exact same behavior. This variability becomes a wide gulf from one command to the next, but even under the same command this can be quite pronounced and observable. This variability is for more complex than simply PTSD vs non-PTSD, MEB vs non-MEB.

The whole suggestion is that getting in treatment for PTSD is what makes them look towards a misconduct discharge. This is not at all accurate, not from anything I've seen. The easiest way to avoid getting your misbehavior hammered is to be in treatment before hand. A Soldier that's been seeing BH that suddenly has a alcohol related incident is pushed towards a MEB more often than a misconduct discharge.

Now, if the question becomes is it too hard to get BH to take a Soldier's side that the PTSD/TBI creates questions of mental culpability, or if counseling and opportunities to repair are effective, or maybe that misconduct discharges shouldn't be enough to stop a MEB, these are questions that I think can lead to interesting answers. The question being simply if misconduct really occurs, I doubt they will get to the heart of the matter.

 

[gsfowler]

"an example"? More than likley "most examples", this is why the Senator is investigating. The bottom line is that many servicemembers sustained injuries or had injuries were aggravated by service. PTSD and TBI have many residual symptoms that piece of shit NCO's run to Commanders with, attempting to railroad these injured servicemembers because they are too stupid, too arrogant or too ignorant to understand how the human mind works.

I'm sure they will be looking at non-judical punishment, which is basically a Captain and a NCO jacking each other off.

How about we pull the numbers on how many 1SGTs run to at the end of their career, looking to get a 50% to 100% paycheck from the VA, padding their retirement.

I've seen many, hell the 1SGT from the CBWTU when I was in there went straight from tour, to the WTU when the regulations changed and had to PCS to the duty site, rather than collect BAH and live in off-post housing which was paid for by the military to include per-diem.

 

[Ed Mercanti]

I know a guy who suffers from severe PTSD and clinical depression. He was a combat medic and earned the CMB. He was able to follow orders and complete his 20 year military career.

Does the soldier/sailor/airman know right from wrong and can he adhere to the right??

 

[chaplaincharlie]

Ed,

I agree, there are many people with PTSD/TBI that are able to comply with orders and complete either their term of enlistment or an entire career. These illnesses, like many others, range from very mild to extremely severe. But there is a significant minority of people that lack the ability to take care of themselves, much less the requirements of military life due to their illness.

Look at the VA criteria:

Total occupational and social impairment, due to such symptoms as: gross impairment in thought processes or communication; persistent delusions or hallucinations; grossly inappropriate behavior; persistent danger of hurting self or others; intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living (including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene); disorientation to time or place; memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name. 100

Occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood, due to such symptoms as: suicidal ideation; obsessional rituals which interfere with routine activities; speech intermittently illogical, obscure, or irrelevant; near-continuous panic or depression affecting the ability to function independently, appropriately and effectively; impaired impulse control (such as unprovoked irritability with periods of violence); spatial disorientation; neglect of personal appearance and hygiene; difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances (including work or a worklike setting); inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. 70

Occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity due to such symptoms as: flattened affect; circumstantial, circumlocutory, or stereotyped speech; panic attacks more than once a week; difficulty in understanding complex commands; impairment of short- and long-term memory (e.g., retention of only highly learned material, forgetting to complete tasks); impaired judgment; impaired abstract thinking; disturbances of motivation and mood; difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. 50

All of the bolded items could cause a member to find himself/herself in hot water at work.

 

[dals]

I have something small to add just for my meb I went to let my shirt/1sg know the commanders input letter request would be soon and let her know why I made the decision to start it and when my pcm asked if I could do my job with my limitations I said no, it would not be safe and I would not be able to do any of my 7 level tasks etc.

So the first thing she says after I tell her my story is" Well let me ask you something, if I go look in your PIF right now what would I find? " what does that matter for a meb? I didn't have much in my file but she said it like if I did she would tell my commander I'm a pos trying to work the system? I'm assuming here I can't confirm anything you just would of had to hear how she said it. Not are you okay? Or how my family is dealing with the possibility of medical discharge. She went straight on the offensive. She's been a shirt a long time, if that says anything about how they are trained or normal protocol for 1sgts it would lean more towards just getting rid of people instead of meb. Also I'm in the air force and my job is lacking qualified 7 levels so I doubt there's any force shaping influencing their decisions for me, while the army needs to lose over 100,000 people I think I read by 2017. There was an example of an e_6 kicked out at 17 years for a dui he got in 2003. They need to lose a lot of people I would not want to be in the army right now they will find a way to make it look legit

 

[chaplaincharlie]

.... force shaping influencing their decisions for me, while the army needs to lose over 100,000 people I think I read by 2017. There was an example of an e_6 kicked out at 17 years for a dui he got in 2003. They need to lose a lot of people I would not want to be in the army right now they will find a way to make it look legit

There was a separate article about scrubbing personnel files harder during the force shaping.

 

[Jason Perry]

I have dealt with many cases where a member is discharged for "misconduct" despite having a "physical or mental illness that was the direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct," which is the standard that applied. See AR 635-200, Para. 14-17.

A routine error is in not even addressing the medical issues, but, just pushing the admin discharge without doing a complete physical. I even had a case where the member had an MEB findng that the member failed retention standards due to his PTSD, that was finalized the same day as the discharge board and the board refused to wait until the documents could be sent from the MEB to the board before acting. The GCMCA never considered the issue and the Court of Federal Claims found this to be error.

I never saw an instance where someone had behavior that was ok suddenly called misconduct just because someone had PTSD and might get a disability payment and someone wanted to make sure the PTSD diagnosis was tanked. Which is what this seems to be suggesting.

I don't think this is what the article is suggesting. I think the Senator is concerned that the Army is not and has not followed its own rules on how to process these cases.

The problem is more about when can PTSD be used as a get out of jail free card. Some misconduct is likely related to PTSD, and the question becomes what is going to be more effective long term, punishing the misconduct or treating the underlying PTSD.

I don't think this is the problem at all. I have seen dozens of cases where a Soldier, with PTSD and/or TBI, is given strong medication, misses formation a few times, and is chaptered for being late to report.

This question is answered in a very inconsistent way across the Army, it really depends on the prejudices of the commander rather than the nature or degree of the misconduct. But not the prejudices of the commander towards disability payments, but really because there is some real inherent variability in how misconduct discharges are handled across the Army.

I agree with the above....the issue is handled inconsistently (and often poorly).

First paragraph in the article:
U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown wants an investigation into reports the Army discharged more than 22,000 soldiers who had post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury for alleged "misconduct" after they returned home from Iraq and Afghanistan.

See my above comments. I don't read this as stating that normal conduct transforms into misconduct after a diagnosis. I see it as a concern with the Army not taking into account the impact of PTSD/TBI on relatively minor infractions.

Does the soldier/sailor/airman know right from wrong and can he adhere to the right??

I have seen this quoted many times in BCMR cases. It is the wrong standard. That standard is more in line with an "insanity defense" at court-martial. The standard is in AR 635-200:
Does the soldier have "an incapacitating physical or mental illness that was the direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct"?

 

[Jason Perry]

The referenced GAO report in the article can be found here (I will post it separately in the resource section when I have a chance):
http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/668519.pdf

It is worth a read and it offers an unacceptable assessment of how the services deal with this issue.

 

[Ed Mercanti]

"I have seen this quoted many times in BCMR cases. It is the wrong standard. That standard is more in line with an "insanity defense" at court-martial. The standard is in AR 635-200:
Does the soldier have "an incapacitating physical or mental illness that was the direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct"?

That is true Jason. But when I was considering such a case I was considering error or injustice. So I would first look at the applicant's APFT scores and NCOERs or OERs. If the preponderance of evidence would show that a PEB would find the applicant fit for duty, then I would look at whether the applicant was responsible for his actions at the time he committed the misconduct. For example, if someone had been diagnosed with PTSD and assaulted an MP or policeman immediately following, say, a significant automobile accident, I would have to question whether a "temporary insanity" defense should have been applied (it really isn't temporary insanity, it is the reaction of a combat soldier who falsely believes that he is under fire).

Its why I used that term . . .

 

[Jason Perry]

"I have seen this quoted many times in BCMR cases. It is the wrong standard. That standard is more in line with an "insanity defense" at court-martial. The standard is in AR 635-200:
Does the soldier have "an incapacitating physical or mental illness that was the direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct"?

That is true Jason. But when I was considering such a case I was considering error or injustice. So I would first look at the applicant's APFT scores and NCOERs or OERs. If the preponderance of evidence would show that a PEB would find the applicant fit for duty, then I would look at whether the applicant was responsible for his actions at the time he committed the misconduct. For example, if someone had been diagnosed with PTSD and assaulted an MP or policeman immediately following, say, a significant automobile accident, I would have to question whether a "temporary insanity" defense should have been applied (it really isn't temporary insanity, it is the reaction of a combat soldier who falsely believes that he is under fire).

Its why I used that term . . .

Wasn't trying to sharpshoot you, Ed. You provide a lot of valuable input as to how things are, at least initially, viewed and adjudicated. It is always better, for example, if a claimant could show that they meet the requirements of the higher (even if wrong) standard. My point was to state that if an application is denied based on use of a wrong standard, there is ample legal reasoning to support a successful appeal. In my practice, I would argue the correct standard...but, if I could show the higher standard, I would do that to. I recently won a significant case based on doing just that....I didn't even need to address the lower standard based on judicial finding in unrelated matters that showed my client was adjudged legally insane.

 

[scoutCC]

Let's start from a basic premise. The Army is dealing with PTSD and/or TBI poorly. The question becomes twofold, 1) how to fix it? and 2) how to shine a light on it?

Looking for examples of PTSD symptoms being "mischaracterized" as misconduct will not answer question #2. The basic premise that PTSD causes behavior to be mischaracterized is heading in the wrong direction IMO. You're not going to get the military to think not following the rules is anything but misconduct.

The problem is more about when can PTSD be used as a get out of jail free card. Some misconduct is likely related to PTSD, and the question becomes what is going to be more effective long term, punishing the misconduct or treating the underlying PTSD.

I don't think this is the problem at all. I have seen dozens of cases where a Soldier, with PTSD and/or TBI, is given strong medication, misses formation a few times, and is chaptered for being late to report

Missing a few formations is enough to get you kicked out. This isn't mischaracterization of misconduct. This is misconduct. The reality of how things work though is there is almost always more going on than the missed formations. The missed formations were easy to write counseling, so they became the official story, but the real story is always more complex.

Saying it happened because of PTSD and/or TBI can be a get out of jail free card in this example. Without the PTSD / TBI there wouldn't be the medication, then there wouldn't be the side effects, then there wouldn't be the problem. That's fine, some amount of get out of jail free works, its really baked into the process of a misconduct discharge. In a tanker unit, scoring well at gunnery is a get out of jail free card for some minor misbehavior. In an infantry unit, getting over 300 on the PT score gets you out of trouble sometimes. There is an unspoken system of "good Soldier points" and "bad Soldier points" that weight into the determination of if/what discharge to pursue.

I don't think the regs help the situation, unfortunately.

"physical or mental illness that was the direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct," which is the standard that applied. See AR 635-200, Para. 14-17.

This is meaningless to most commanders. They don't know how to answer this question. So what do they do? They ask the docs. The docs don't know when or how to step into the process. They almost always say no, the PTSD and/or TBI didn't cause it. Even if you ask the question right, and ask if the medication cause it, they'll answer wrong. Oh, well, I can't prove the medication is the problem, because I have 20 other Soldiers on the same meds and they make formation. Without explanation that side effects are different for different people.

I even had a case where the member had an MEB findng that the member failed retention standards due to his PTSD, that was finalized the same day as the discharge board and the board refused to wait until the documents could be sent from the MEB to the board before acting. The GCMCA never considered the issue and the Court of Federal Claims found this to be error.

To me, it sounds like these are the types of issues they'll find. They may even number into the hundreds, but I kinda doubt it. For the most part, they try to follow the regs. The problem is much bigger than these types of issues though.

it really isn't temporary insanity, it is the reaction of a combat soldier who falsely believes that he is under fire

This gets into just how hard it is to figure out if PTSD/TBI can be a get out of jail free card. This is a very real type of scenario, and medical will never take the side of the Soldier.

The problem is commanders need some real guidance and consistency on what means they need to push a Soldier into help, and what means they need to clamp down on problems. This are hard rules to write. How do you make it apply to the situation where a Soldier is genuinely freaked out and starts fighting w/o thinking about if its an MP there and still have teeth for the guy who decides formations are optional but thinks going to BH will make the problem go away when told an article 15 is forthcoming.

PTSD/TBI is not well suited for the informal point system. It leads to things like a Soldier PCSing to a take a knee unit and suddenly getting hammered because the standards are so different there. It can lead to things like an E6 going downrange and murdering civilians when he probably should have been pushed out well before the deployment.

 

[Jason Perry]

scottCC,

I appreciate your point and input. I don't agree with all (or some or any) of what you stated (I will need to work through what you stated....I literally quoted what you wrote and will offer my thoughts on each in turn....some I may agree with, may disagree with, or may "punt" as to what I think may be "unanswerable," or may be resolved one way or another on appeal. (And, I may disagree with the current cases or law in deference to what I think the "correct" answer might be....as soon as they elect me as the President of the United States or appoint me as the Secretary of Defense, I will fix these issues where I have points of disagreement).

Missing a few formations is enough to get you kicked out. This isn't mischaracterization of misconduct. This is misconduct. The reality of how things work though is there is almost always more going on than the missed formations. The missed formations were easy to write counseling, so they became the official story, but the real story is always more complex.

Yes, as to missing formations being enough to get you kicked out. But, strongly disagree as this being a valid reason to separate a member for "misconduct" when their condition or medical treatment makes the Soldier "sleepy" to the point that they miss formation. Reference my earlier post about the standard:
Whether the member had a "physical or mental illness that was the direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct," See AR 635-200, Para. 14-17.

Saying it happened because of PTSD and/or TBI can be a get out of jail free card in this example. Without the PTSD / TBI there wouldn't be the medication, then there wouldn't be the side effects, then there wouldn't be the problem. That's fine, some amount of get out of jail free works, its really baked into the process of a misconduct discharge. In a tanker unit, scoring well at gunnery is a get out of jail free card for some minor misbehavior. In an infantry unit, getting over 300 on the PT score gets you out of trouble sometimes. There is an unspoken system of "good Soldier points" and "bad Soldier points" that weight into the determination of if/what discharge to pursue.

Understand your point. Just point out that the Army has systemically failed to address the standard from my previous response. AR 635-200, Para. 14-17. My take (based on experience, both as a government attorney and attorney representing members) is that the right issue is never reached or addressed. Further, my experience says that there are far more cases of Soldiers being improperly denied benefits than those "skating" or getting any type of "get of jail free card." The errors skew hugely on the side of improper denial of compensation/benefits than some situation where Soldiers are "getting over" and getting what they don't deserve. By far the military is by far denying rightful compensation over "over paying or over compensating" Soldiers. Would bet every cent I have or whatever organ on this. Can't prove it, but I am not wrong on this.

This is meaningless to most commanders. They don't know how to answer this question. So what do they do? They ask the docs. The docs don't know when or how to step into the process. They almost always say no, the PTSD and/or TBI didn't cause it. Even if you ask the question right, and ask if the medication cause it, they'll answer wrong. Oh, well, I can't prove the medication is the problem, because I have 20 other Soldiers on the same meds and they make formation. Without explanation that side effects are different for different people.

Sure, but, the commander's lack of experience or knowledge about this issue is not an excuse for not following the laws and regulations. (This maybe- and probably should be- horrifying. I went through the XVIII Airborne Corps Commander's Course at Fort Bragg....the only training on disability issues was a slide that referenced the regulations and stated to defer to your Judge Advocate on any issues/questions. A year later, when I went through the Judge Advocate Basic Course, the training on this was one Power Point that said if you have questions or issues, call a subject matter expert). I can't count the number of senior officers (and NCO's) that I represented that have a hard time understanding their initial outcome....the common response or comment is that "this system/process does not work like any other process that I have dealt with in my [insert number of years...maybe 18, maybe 26] of service. I have many times had to counsel Senior Colonels (or General Officers a couple of times), Sergeants Major, or other senior folks that the issues in process are different from their previous experiences.

To me, it sounds like these are the types of issues they'll find. They may even number into the hundreds, but I kinda doubt it. For the most part, they try to follow the regs. The problem is much bigger than these types of issues though.

Wish you were right. I am not dealing with "one off" errors or rare situations. Unfortunately, these issues are pervasive. The Army (and the military departments generally) get these issues wrong a majority of the time. These are not rare or unusual issues.

I do appreciate the "counter-point" and the opportunity to address disagreements. Much of the "bottom line" answer is difficult or impossible to definitively answer. (The reason for that is because of the nature of how cases are processed, appealed, and reported). I hate the answer or response that "you should trust me because I know...." However. based on the limitations on reporting, (non) precedential nature of cases and small volume of appeals to Federal Court, at some level, I suggest my experience over more than 10 years dealing with actual cases on appeal and being the most prolific attorney appearing in the Court of Federal Claims (more than 28 cases since 2009...which is a multiple of any other attorney) allows me to state my opinion and have that, by itself, carry some weight.

 

[Ed Mercanti]

Wasn't trying to sharpshoot you, Ed. You provide a lot of valuable input as to how things are, at least initially, viewed and adjudicated. It is always better, for example, if a claimant could show that they meet the requirements of the higher (even if wrong) standard. My point was to state that if an application is denied based on use of a wrong standard, there is ample legal reasoning to support a successful appeal. In my practice, I would argue the correct standard...but, if I could show the higher standard, I would do that to. I recently won a significant case based on doing just that....I didn't even need to address the lower standard based on judicial finding in unrelated matters that showed my client was adjudged legally insane.

I totally understand Jason. You do what you do very well, which is applying the exact law and regulation to the case. I was just giving you my thought process when writing a case. Understand that the examiners (and team chiefs) writing the cases are not lawyers. Most are retired personnel SGM's, CW4's, and LTC's. I served three years as junior enlisted. I have no college degree (although all three of the people on my team had Master's Degrees). I often said that the ABCMR existed to apply common sense to the cases. And that's what I tried to do