IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  27 January 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140002456 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge and that all medical and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits be restored.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he has been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and contends that PTSD was the catalyst for his misconduct and subsequent discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 10. 

3.  The applicant provides various service and post-service medical records, a Notice of Decision letter from the Social Security Administration, photographs, and several letters of support/concern. 

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests an upgrade of the applicant's UOTHC discharge and that all of the applicant's medical and VA benefits be restored.

2.  Counsel states:

   a.  On 22 July 2010, the applicant was discharged from the U.S. Army pursuant to Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  At the time the applicant was charged with absenting himself from his unit (twice), failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, wrongfully using marijuana, and wrongfully using cocaine.  On 14 June 2010, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his request the applicant noted:

   "I have not been the same since returning from Afghanistan.  I find myself
unable to control some impulses and not fitting well in the Army anymore.  I feel like I am not grasping society like before and that I no longer have a leveled head.  I suffer from cold sweats and a couple of bed incident[s] that not only left memories, but lower my pride as a man.  My perception on people and life isn't the same.  I just feel I can't go on outside the Army without help."

   b.  Despite his request for a general discharge, the applicant received a UOTHC discharge.  On 22 July 2010, the applicant sought relief from the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), requesting that his discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.  In denying the petition, the board observed; "The applicant contends he suffered from PTSD.  The record does not support the contention that the applicant suffered from PTSD and no evidence to support it has been submitted by the applicant, that the discharge was the result of any medical condition."
   
   c.  It is axiomatic that Soldiers receiving a chapter 10 discharge ordinarily receive a UOTHC discharge.  Yet it is also apparent from the applicant's medical records that he was suffering from depression and PTSD stemming from his deployment to Afghanistan from September 2008 to June 2009 and that he sought medical assistance before he began to get in trouble with military authorities.
   
   d.  The applicant sought help from military medical personnel on
23 September 2009.  These records plus subsequent medical records establish clear and convincing evidence that the applicant was suffering from a service-connected mental health condition that was clearly associated with his service in Afghanistan.  The medical records reflect that the applicant was exhibiting symptoms consistent with PTSD and depression to include:  intrusive memories, dreams, emotional numbness, isolation, poor sleep, irritability, poor concentration, and hyper-vigilance.  He also reported cold sweats and bed wetting.  In the words of a more recent mental health evaluation, "it is very obvious that he suffers from PTSD."
   
   e.  According to family members, there was no evidence of mental health troubles prior to the applicant's deployment to Afghanistan.  On the contrary, the applicant was an energetic and healthy young man.  He was a varsity basketball player as a high school freshman.  He was also a member of the school band, playing saxophone.  He was clearly viewed as a leader among his peers winning the "Mr. Sophomore" award.  By his senior year he was a star athlete, a valued worker, and he was accepted at several colleges.  A former employer of the applicant's observes:
   
   	"The applicant worked for me, four years ago when I was manager of a retail store in Hanes Mall Winston-Salem, NC, called Lids.  The applicant was a great asset to our stores success.  He was very personable, attentive and assertive.  His customer service interaction with our consumers was both open and pleasurable."
 
	f.  Thus in 2008, the applicant was a young, highly-motivated, and patriotic young man who chose to enlist in the U.S. Army in a time of war, knowing that he would likely serve in combat.  The applicant completed basic training at Fort Sill, OK, in April 2008, and he attended advanced individual training at Fort Lee, VA.  After successfully completing the unit supply specialist course he was assigned to Fort Hood, TX, where he learned he would soon deploy.

	g.  In September 2008, the applicant deployed to Afghanistan.  The applicant served with the 3rd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division.  Initially he was stationed in the Green Zone, and then later he was assigned to a nearby Forward Operating Base where he often pulled guard duty at an entry control point.  During this time the applicant narrowly escaped serious injury as a result of a nearby explosion.  During the deployment he lost two friends to suicide as well as to combat.  His awards include:  the Afghanistan Campaign Medal with Campaign Star, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Service Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, and the Combat Action Badge.

	h.  Upon his return from Afghanistan, the applicant's family noticed a distinct change in his personality.  He seems anxious and depressed.  He complained of bad memories and dreams.  He was disengaged.  He complained of poor sleep and poor concentration.  His family was unaware of the bed wetting since the applicant kept this to himself.  In the months following his redeployment, the applicant's behavioral health condition continued to deteriorate.  He faced financial and marital difficulties, exacerbated by the fact that the Army was taking money out of his check for a report of survey.  He did not receive his basic allowance for quarters for several months despite his marital status.

	i.  In December the applicant's family learned he had openly said that he wanted to kill himself.  Military medical records reveal that by 10 December the applicant acknowledged alcohol and substance abuse problems.  As is common for individuals contending with PTSD, the applicant began to self-medicate with alcohol and then drugs (marijuana and some cocaine).  Listless and disinterested in life, the applicant began to miss work.  This led to two Article 15s.  All this misconduct followed the applicant's attempt to get mental health assistance in September 2009.

   j.  The applicant's mother was deeply troubled and attempted to communicate with members of his chain of command.  She was assured that her son would receive the appropriate treatment.  On 10 December 2009, a noncommissioned officer emailed her stating, "I will try to work with him to get all the medical attention he needs for his conditions."  Unfortunately this turned out to be untrue.  Her son continued to decompose.  The applicant's mother finally traveled to Killeen, TX, on 11 January 2010.  By this time her son was already receiving nonjudicial punishment (NJP) and the command seemed, in her view, to be uninterested in her son's condition.
   
   k.  On 2 February 2010, the applicant was admitted to the Red River facility.  There he was diagnosed with polysubstance abuse, major depressive disorder, and PTSD.  It should be observed that the subsequent court-martial charges which pertain to use of illegal drugs occurred several weeks before the applicant's admission to Red River.  Following his treatment at Red River, it appears the applicant's misconduct was limited to being absent without leave (AWOL) for 8 days in April/May and an AWOL of 18 days in May/June as well as missing a physical training formation on 2 June 2010.  There is also evidence that during one of these absences the applicant sought mental health treatment.  On 10 April 2010, at 6:29 am, the applicant was seen at the Metroplex Hospital in Killeen, TX.
   
   l.  The applicant's absences from duty represent wrongdoing.  It is not the petitioner's contention that his mental health condition at the time completely excused his behavior.  Nevertheless, the applicant's actions do seem to constitute what is essentially minor misconduct.  Similar misconduct serves as the basis for discharges under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 (unsuitability) or chapter 14 (pattern of misconduct).  Moreover, it cannot be gainsaid that this pattern of misconduct appears clearly related to the applicant's acute mental health difficulties following his deployment to Afghanistan.  In short, the applicant's depression and PTSD, stemming from his service in Afghanistan, constitutes significant extenuating and mitigating circumstances.
   
   m.  Following his discharge, the applicant continued to suffer from combat-related stress and mental health difficulties.  He has been treated at:
   
* Old Vineyard Psychiatric Treatment Center, Winston-Salem, NC
* Daymark Recovery Services, Winston-Salem, NC
* Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, NC

   n.  The applicant has been repeatedly diagnosed with combat-related PTSD.  Since November 2010, the applicant has been treated by L_____ G_____, Medical Assistant Licensed Psychological Associate, who notes:  "I saw the applicant for an initial psychological evaluation on  24 November 2010.  He has been in treatment with me since that time.  His most recent visit was 25 January 2012.  My current evaluation is:
   
   	Axis T:    PTSD.  Chronic.  Severe.  Depressive Disorder (Not Otherwise Specified)
   	Axis II:    Deferred
   	Axis III:   Possible Traumatic Brain Injury
   	Axis IV:   Combat stressors during service in Afghanistan, significant problems transitioning to civilian life, multiple trips to emergency room for suicidal ideation
   	Axis V:    Global Assessment of Functioning = 37

	o.  It seems apparent that as a matter of equity that the applicant's discharge should be upgraded.  He is a combat veteran.  He clearly suffers from combat-related disabilities.  These disabilities, taken together with the prejudicial effects of his UOTHC discharge, have presented significant challenges to the applicant in his post-deployment life.  Fortunately, he has been assisted by his devoted mother as well as family members, but this veteran struggles daily with the effects of depression and PTSD.

	p.  The Army has recognized that:  "After a decade of war, invisible wounds such as PTSD and other behavioral health conditions are prevalent as Soldiers return from multiple combat deployments."  Furthermore, in his book on combat, Lieutenant Colonel (retired) D____ G_______ observes, "The stress of combat debilitates far more warriors than are killed in direct hostile action.  It is this toxic, corrosive, destructive domain of the Universal Human Phobia that we ask our Soldiers and police officers to live, and to die.  This is the realm of combat."

	q.  There is no evidence the applicant was ever considered for entry in the Disability Evaluation System, despite clear evidence that he was medically unfit.  This represents the consistent challenge that faces Soldiers with debilitating mental health issues.  All too often there arise incidents of bad behavior before the Soldier receives an adequate mental health assessment and entry into the Disability Evaluation System.  

	r.  While a commander may administer NJP pursuant to Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), or prefer court-martial charges when a Soldier seems unfit for duty, a Soldier is no longer eligible to be processed through the Disability Evaluation System if a commander prefers court-martial charges.  Moreover, once a Soldier elects an administrative discharge in lieu of a court-martial pursuant to Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, the Soldier is barred from the Disability Evaluation System.  This circumstance is further exacerbated by the fact that Soldiers discharged with a UOTHC discharge are generally barred from all benefits administered by the VA.  The applicant's family is confident that these consequences were never explained to the applicant.

	s.  Consequently, the applicant is a wounded warrior who has fallen between the cracks of the Military Disability System.  This is a young man who chose to serve his country in a time of war.  He is the recipient of the Combat Action Badge, which means that the applicant faced enemy fire.  Yet he has received no assistance from the U.S. Army as a result of his invisible wounds which were undoubtedly incurred in combat.  

	t.  The applicant was wounded in service of his country in combat in the Global War on Terror and he receives not one benefit from the VA.  This is not an equitable result.  This is not in keeping with this country's long-standing commitment and loyalty to its combat veterans.  Granted, some acts of misconduct are so heinous and so serious that it is understood that the wrongdoer has forfeited his right and benefits as a veteran.  Yet as the Supreme  Court has recently acknowledged, "Our Nation has a long tradition of according leniency to veterans in recognition of their service, especially for those who fought on the front lines."

	u.  The gravamen of this case is that the applicant should be accorded some leniency in recognition of his service to his country.  His service-connected wounds, invisible as they may be, should be treated by the VA.  In light of his service he should be given a measure of compassion and gesture of clemency.  As this Board has previously observed, "Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed."  Upgrading the discharge of the applicant constitutes a reasonable act of mercy.

3.  Counsel provides a petition in support of the applicant's application for correction of military records, various service and post-service medical records, a Notice of Decision letter from the Social Security Administration, photographs, and several letters of support/concern.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve on 9 November 2007.  He successfully completed training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 92Y (Unit Supply Specialist).  The applicant was honorably discharged 30 July 2008 for immediate enlistment in the Regular Army on 31 July 2008. 
2.  Evidence shows the applicant served in Afghanistan for the period                  27 September 2008 to 1 July 2009. 

3.  The applicant and counsel provided a Standard Form 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care), dated 23 September 2009, which shows the applicant sought medical care and referrals for anxiety and depression.  He stated that upon his return from deployment in June 2009, he noticed a drastic change in his mood.  He endorsed intrusive memories and dreams, emotional numbness, feeling cut off from others, poor sleep, irritability, poor concentration, and moderate hyperstartle response.  He reported cold sweats, bedwetting episodes, feeling sad, isolative, and withdrawn.

4.  His records show he accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ on 12 January 2010 for:

   a.  wrongfully using cocaine on or about 7 October 2009;
   
   b.  failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on          2, 3, and 4 December 2009;

   c.  failing to obey a lawful order on 4 December 2009;
   
   d.  absenting himself from his unit for the period 7 December to 10 December 2009;
   
   e.  willfully disobeying a lawful order on or about 18 December 2009;
   
   f.  wrongfully using cocaine on or about 22 December 2009; and

   g.  absenting himself from his unit for the period 18 December 2009 to              6 January 2010.

5.  His punishment consisted, in part, of a reduction in rank/grade from private first class (PFC)/E-3 to private (PV2)/E-2.

6.  His records show he once again accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ on 10 May 2010 for:

   a.  wrongfully using marijuana on or about 8 December 2009 to 7 January 2010;

   b.  wrongfully using cocaine on or about 4 January and 7 January 2010; and

   c.  absenting himself from his unit for the period 26 April to 3 May 2010.

7.  On 2 June 2010, the applicant's punishments imposed on 10 May 2010 were set aside on the basis the applicant went AWOL before beginning any of the punishments.  The offenses were now being charged by court-martial.

8.  On 3 June 2010, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for violation of the UCMJ for:

   a.  absenting himself from his unit for the period 26 April to 3 May 2010;

   b.  absenting himself from his unit for the period 14 May to 1 June 2010;

   c.  failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 2 June 2010; 

   d.  wrongfully using marijuana on or about 8 December 2009 to 7 January 2010; and 

   e.  wrongfully using cocaine on or about 1 January to 7 January 2010. 

9.  On 14 June 2010, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct discharge or a discharge UOTHC.  He was advised of the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of a request for discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.  Following consultation with legal counsel, the applicant requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial in accordance with chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  

   a.  The applicant stated that he understood that his request for discharge in lieu of court-martial could result in receipt of an UOTHC discharge.  However, based on his 3 years of service, 10-month deployment of Afghanistan, and no prior incidents of misconduct, he asked that he be granted a general discharge.  He further stated that he had been diagnosed with PTSD, sleep disorder, anxiety, and depression.

   b.  He acknowledged that he understood that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if anything other than an honorable discharge was issued to him.  He also understood that as the result of the issuance of such a discharge that he may be denied benefits administered by the VA, and that he may be deprived of some of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  The loss of benefits includes the GI Bill as well as VA education benefits and Federal civil service retirement credit.  He further understood that if his request was approved he would automatically be reduced to the rank/grade of private/E-1 and would not be paid for any leave that he may have earned at the time of discharge.  

10.  On 21 July 2010, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service in accordance with chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 and directed the issuance of a UOTHC discharge.  The separation authority also directed that the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.  On 22 July 2010, the applicant was accordingly discharged.

11.  The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of a trial by court-martial with a UOTHC discharge.  He had completed 2 years, 2 months, and 16 days of creditable active military service and he had 46 days of lost time during this period of enlistment.  He was awarded or authorized the:

* Afghanistan Campaign Medal with Campaign Star
* North Atlantic Treaty Organization Medal
* Army Achievement Medal
* National Defense Service Medal
* Global War on Terrorism Service Medal
* Army Service Ribbon
* Overseas Service Ribbon
* Combat Action Badge

12.  His available military record does not contain any medical records.

13.  On 20 September 2011, the President of the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) notified the applicant that after careful review of his application, military records and all other available evidence, the ADRB determined that he was properly and equitably discharged.  Accordingly, his request for a change in the character and/or reason of his discharge was denied.

14.  The applicant and counsel provide:

	a.  Copies of letters to the VA from December 2010 through September 2013, from a licensed psychological associate with Psychological Consulting Services, Durham, NC, who diagnosed the applicant with severe, chronic, PTSD, a depressive disorder (not otherwise specified), and a possible traumatic brain injury due to combat stressors during service in Afghanistan.  The applicant had also exhibited significant problems transitioning to civilian life and had multiple trips to the emergency room for suicidal ideation.
	b.  A letter from the Social Security Administration noting medical evidence which reflects a history of mental impairments with diagnoses of PTSD, major depressive disorder, and adjustment disorder.  His PTSD symptoms caused significant disturbances in all areas of his life and a treating licensed psychological associate deemed the applicant totally and permanently disabled.  Subsequently, the Social Security Administration determined that the applicant has been disabled since 1 July 2010.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

16.  PTSD can occur after someone goes through a traumatic event like combat, assault, or disaster.  The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and it provides standard criteria and common language for the classification of mental disorders.  In 1980, the APA added PTSD to the third edition of its DSM-III nosologic classification scheme.  Although controversial when first introduced, the PTSD diagnosis has filled an important gap in psychiatric theory and practice.
From an historical perspective, the significant change ushered in by the PTSD concept was the stipulation that the etiological agent was outside the individual (i.e., a traumatic event) rather than an inherent individual weakness (i.e., a traumatic neurosis).  The key to understanding the scientific basis and clinical expression of PTSD is the concept of "trauma." 

17.  PTSD is unique among psychiatric diagnoses because of the great importance placed upon the etiological agent, the traumatic stressor.  In fact, one cannot make a PTSD diagnosis unless the patient has actually met the "stressor criterion," which means that he or she has been exposed to an event that is considered traumatic.  Clinical experience with the PTSD diagnosis has shown, however, that there are individual differences regarding the capacity to cope with catastrophic stress.  Therefore, while most people exposed to traumatic events do not develop PTSD, others go on to develop the full-blown syndrome.  Such observations have prompted the recognition that trauma, like pain, is not an external phenomenon that can be completely objectified.  Like pain, the traumatic experience is filtered through cognitive and emotional processes before it can be appraised as an extreme threat.  Because of individual differences in this appraisal process, different people appear to have different trauma thresholds, some more protected from and some more vulnerable to developing clinical symptoms after exposure to extremely stressful situations.

18.  The DSM fifth revision (DSM-5) was released in May 2013.  This revision includes changes to the diagnostic criteria for PTSD and Acute Stress Disorder.  The PTSD diagnostic criteria were revised to take into account things that have been learned from scientific research and clinical experience.  The revised diagnostic criteria for PTSD include a history of exposure to a traumatic event that meets specific stipulations and symptoms from each of four symptom clusters:  intrusion, avoidance, negative alterations in cognitions and mood, and alterations in arousal and reactivity.  The sixth criterion concerns duration of symptoms; the seventh assesses functioning; and the eighth criterion clarifies symptoms as not attributable to a substance or co-occurring medical condition.

	a.  Criterion A, stressor:  The person was exposed to: death, threatened death, actual or threatened serious injury, or actual or threatened sexual violence, as follows: (one required) 

		(1)  Direct exposure. 

		(2)  Witnessing, in person.

		(3)  Indirectly, by learning that a close relative or close friend was exposed to trauma.  If the event involved actual or threatened death, it must have been violent or accidental.

		(4)  Repeated or extreme indirect exposure to aversive details of the event(s), usually in the course of professional duties (e.g., first responders, collecting body parts; professionals repeatedly exposed to details of child abuse). This does not include indirect non-professional exposure through electronic media, television, movies, or pictures.

	b.  Criterion B, intrusion symptoms:  The traumatic event is persistently re-experienced in the following way(s): (one required) 

		(1)  Recurrent, involuntary, and intrusive memories. 

		(2)  Traumatic nightmares. 

		(3)  Dissociative reactions (e.g., flashbacks) which may occur on a continuum from brief episodes to complete loss of consciousness. 

		(4)  Intense or prolonged distress after exposure to traumatic reminders. 
		(5)  Marked physiologic reactivity after exposure to trauma-related stimuli. 

	c.  Criterion C, avoidance:  Persistent effortful avoidance of distressing trauma-related stimuli after the event: (one required)

		(1)  Trauma-related thoughts or feelings.

		(2)  Trauma-related external reminders (e.g., people, places, conversations, activities, objects, or situations).

	d.  Criterion D, negative alterations in cognitions and mood:  Negative alterations in cognitions and mood that began or worsened after the traumatic event: (two required)

		(1)  Inability to recall key features of the traumatic event (usually dissociative amnesia; not due to head injury, alcohol, or drugs).

		(2)  Persistent (and often distorted) negative beliefs and expectations about oneself or the world (e.g., "I am bad," "The world is completely dangerous").

		(3)  Persistent distorted blame of self or others for causing the traumatic event or for resulting consequences.

		(4)  Persistent negative trauma-related emotions (e.g., fear, horror, anger, guilt, or shame).

		(5)  Markedly diminished interest in (pre-traumatic) significant activities.
Feeling alienated from others (e.g., detachment or estrangement).

		(6)  Constricted affect: persistent inability to experience positive emotions. 

	e.  Criterion E, alterations in arousal and reactivity:  Trauma-related alterations in arousal and reactivity that began or worsened after the traumatic event: (two required)

		(1)  Irritable or aggressive behavior

		(2)  Self-destructive or reckless behavior

		(3)  Hypervigilance

		(4)  Exaggerated startle response
		(5)  Problems in concentration

		(6)  Sleep disturbance

	f.  Criterion F, duration:  Persistence of symptoms (in Criteria B, C, D, and E) for more than one month. 

	g.  Criterion G, functional significance:  Significant symptom-related distress or functional impairment (e.g., social, occupational).

	h.  Criterion H, exclusion:  Disturbance is not due to medication, substance use, or other illness. 

19.  As a result of the extensive research conducted by the medical community and the relatively recent issuance of revised criteria regarding the causes, diagnosis and treatment of PTSD the Department of Defense (DOD) acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge.  It is also acknowledged that in some cases this undiagnosed condition of PTSD may have been a mitigating factor in the Soldier's misconduct which served as a catalyst for their discharge.  Research has also shown that misconduct stemming from PTSD is typically based upon a spur of the moment decision resulting from temporary lapse in judgment; therefore, PTSD is not a likely cause for either premeditated misconduct or misconduct that continues for an extended period of time.  

20.  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 UOTHC and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service.

21.  BCM/NRs are not courts, nor are they investigative agencies.  Therefore, the determinations will be based upon a thorough review of the available military records and the evidence provided by each applicant on a case-by-case basis.  When determining if PTSD was the causative factor for an applicant's misconduct and whether an upgrade is warranted, the following factors must be carefully considered:

* Is it reasonable to determine that PTSD or PTSD-related conditions existed at the time of discharge?

* Does the applicant's record contain documentation of the occurrence of a traumatic event during the period of service?
* Does the applicant's military record contain documentation of a diagnosis of PTSD or PTSD-related symptoms?
* Did the applicant provide documentation of a diagnosis of PTSD or PTSD-related symptoms rendered by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider?
* Was the applicant's condition determined to have existed prior to military service?
* Was the applicant's condition determined to be incurred during or aggravated by military service?
* Do mitigating factors exist in the applicant's case?
* Did the applicant have a history of misconduct prior to the occurrence of the traumatic event?
* Was the applicant's misconduct premeditated?
* How serious was the misconduct?

22.  Although the DOD acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged UOTHC may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge, it is presumed that they were properly discharged based upon the evidence that was available at the time.  Conditions documented in the record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge.  In cases in which PTSD or PTSD-related conditions may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge; those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the UOTHC characterization of service.  Corrections Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service of UOTHC.  Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat-related PTSD or PTSD-related conditions as a causative factor in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct.  PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct.  Corrections Boards will also exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's discharge proceedings, for misconduct, were conducted in accordance with law and regulations in effect at the time.  The characterization of the applicant's discharge was commensurate with the reason for discharge and overall record of military service in accordance with the governing regulations in effect at the time.

2.  The Secretary of Defense now has a more thorough understanding of PTSD and its potential to serve as a causative factor in a Soldier's misconduct when the condition is not diagnosed and treated in a timely fashion.

3.  Soldiers who suffered from PTSD and were separated solely for misconduct subsequent to a traumatic event warrant careful consideration for the possible recharacterization of their overall service.

4.  A review of the applicant's record and the evidence that he provided shows that he was subjected to the ordeals of war while serving in Afghanistan.  Of particular note are the instances during which he narrowly escaped serious injury as a result of a nearby explosion, and losing two friends to suicide as well as combat.

5.  Subsequent to these experiences, medical evidence shows the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD/PTSD-related symptoms by a competent mental health professional prior to his misconduct.  Therefore, it is reasonable to believe the applicant's PTSD condition existed at the time of discharge. 

6.  The applicant's record is void of any misconduct prior to his service in Afghanistan.  His subsequent misconduct of drug use and going AWOL appear to have been isolated events and were the result of previously-uncharacteristic lapses in judgment.

7.  It is concluded that the PTSD conditions were a causative factor in the misconduct that led to the discharge.  After carefully weighing that fact against the severity of the applicant's misconduct, there is sufficient mitigating evidence to warrant upgrading the characterization of the applicant's service to a general discharge under honorable conditions and restoring his rank/grade to PV2/E-2 with a date of rank and effective date of 12 January 2010 (the date he was reduced from PFC/E-3 as the result of NJP under the provisions of Article 15).








BOARD VOTE:

____x___  ___x____  ____x___  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by re-issuing the applicant's DD Form 214 to show the characterization of service as "General, Under Honorable Conditions" and his rank/grade as PV2/E-2 with an effective date of 12 January 2010.



      ___________x___________
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140002456



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140002456



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1