Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1980-1989 | 8500312
Original file (8500312.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, reconsideration of his previous application to correct his records by upgrading his undesirable discharge..
APPLICANT STATES : In effect that post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) prevented him from following orders. He also contends, in effect that his lack of education, immaturity and problems at home prior to his entering the military and his recent accomplishments in post-service adjustment should be taken into consideration.

COUNSEL CONTENDS: Counsel concurs in the applicant's presentation and requests that all reasonable doubt be resolved in the applicant's favor.

 NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION : Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 19 March 1986 (COPY ATTACHED).

The applicant submits medical reports and evaluations that indicate he suffers from PTSD and other mental and emotional problems. Five of these are dated after 1993. The other is dated 1978. It was prepared following his return to a Washington State prison for a parole violation. He was serving a 10 year sentence on a drug charge.

In support of his post-service adjustment argument he submits letters from a former employer, a friend and his landlord of 3 years. His parents express concern about his anger over the discharge and his deteriorating medical condition.

His 21 June 1968 report of medical examination for separation shows that he was found qualified for separation (and therefore for retention). In the medical history he provided for that examination he reported “I am in good health.”

PTSD, an anxiety disorder, was not recognized as a psychiatric disorder until 1980 with the publishing of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) III. The condition is described in the current current DSM-IV, pages 424 through 427. While PTSD has only been categorized by psychiatrists as a distinct diagnosis since 1980, it has, as early as the Civil War, been described in psychological literature, variously labeled as shell shock, soldier's heart, effect syndrome, combat fatigue and traumatic neurosis. Although the current label of PTSD is of rather recent acceptance, the idea that catastrophes and tragedies can result in persistent emotional and psychological symptoms is common even among the lay public. Army Regulation 40-501 does not specifically categorize PTSD; however, it does address anxiety or neurotic disorders, which include PTSD, and provides that such disorders are unfitting only if persistence or recurrence of symptoms is sufficient to require extended or recurrent hospitalization, creates a necessity for limitations of duty or duty in a protected environment or resulting in interference with effective performance of military duty.

DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1. Failing evidence that, at the time of the civilian offense that led to his discharge, the applicant was suffering from a mental or emotional defect so severe that he could not tell right from wrong and adhere to the right, the PTSD issue does nothing to demonstrate an injustice in the discharge

3. The applicant’s contentions relating to youth, immaturity and per-service problems do not demonstrate an injustice in the discharge. He had exhibited a capacity by completion of training advancement to pay grade E-4 and reenlistment after approximately 14 months of satisfactory service.

4. The applicant’s recent adjustments to civilian life and his parents’ concerns are noted but these matters are not so exemplary nor exceptional as to demonstrate an injustice in the discharge.

5. The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

6. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

 DETERMINATION : The applicant has failed to submit
sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice.



 BOARD VOTE :
________ ________ ________ GRANT

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION




                                                       Loren G. Harrell
                                                       Director

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1980-1989 | 8809281

    Original file (8809281.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He submits 1994 medical reports and evaluations from the Northwest Georgia Regional Hospital describing his alcohol and drug addictions and other mental and emotional problems. He was being processed for separation under conditions that could have led to discharge under other than honorable conditions and was not eligible for physical disability processing. Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it undoubtedly would have recommended relief in spite of the failure to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1980-1989 | 8302910

    Original file (8302910.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION : Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 22 June 1983 (COPY ATTACHED).The contention that he was discharged under the wrong discharge authority, and that he had a heart condition and PTSD prior to his discharge and that his post service adjustment warrants review constitutes new argument. His 24 September 1962 report of medical examination...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1980-1989 | 8209981A

    Original file (8209981A.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. DISCUSSION : Considering...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9307187

    Original file (9307187.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    COUNSEL CONTENDS: Counsel concurs in the applicant’s presentation and requests that all reasonable doubt be resolved in the applicant’s favor. : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:1. Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it undoubtedly would have recommended relief in spite of the failure to submit the application within the 3 year...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9510727C070209

    Original file (9510727C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT STATES: He was diagnosed as suffering from Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) while on active duty, a condition caused by his being sexually assaulted by his first sergeant. However, separation consideration was suspended when he was entered into the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) in January 1989. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016226

    Original file (20140016226.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's wife states the applicant has been diagnosed with PTSD and clinical depression and she relates how his condition has affected both the applicant and herself. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085644C070212

    Original file (2003085644C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although the Board’s April 2002 summary did not specifically note the applicant’s contention that he suffered from emotional distress, depression, and erratic behavior, following his return from Vietnam, that information was contained in statements submitted by the applicant and his supporters as evidence in the applicant’s original application. Each of the authors of those statements attributes his medical problems to his service in Vietnam. Had the applicant been exhibiting the extreme...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9207856

    Original file (9207856.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION : Incorporated herein is a summarization of the applicant’s military records prepared to reflect the Board’s original consideration of his case on 1 February 1995. A copy of the decision, by the general court-martial convening authority (GCMCA), must be forwarded with the disability case file to the physical evaluation board. While PTSD was not recognized as a specific illness at the time of the applicant's separation from the service, the fact that an...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003006

    Original file (20150003006.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001055784C070420

    Original file (2001055784C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual’s medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for DVA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and...