IN THE CASE OF:    

		BOARD DATE:  14 January 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140007024 


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 bad conduct discharge.

2.  The applicant states he was deployed to Baghdad, Iraq, in 2004 and has been suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) ever since.  Over there, one's life expectancy felt like zero.  He saw and experienced things he never wants to talk or think about.  He is not the same.

3.  The applicant provides:

* two DD Forms 603-1 (War Trophy Registration Authorization)
* Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) Military Leave and Earnings Statements
* letter from his therapist, dated 16 December 2013
* service personnel records
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 January 2003 and trained as a patient administration specialist.

3.  DFAS confirmed he received hostile fire pay/imminent danger pay and combat zone tax exclusion for service in Kuwait from 19 December 2003 to 17 July 2004.

4.  He provided two DD Forms 603-1, dated 15 July 2004, which show he served in Iraq and was authorized to possess an antique Iraqi dagger.

5.  On 15 July 2005, he was convicted by a general court-martial of making a false official statement, using marijuana (three specifications), obtaining services under false pretences, assaulting (stabbing) another Soldier with a knife, missing movement through design, and escaping from custody.  He was sentenced to confinement for 33 months and a bad conduct discharge.  On 15 February 2006, the convening authority approved the sentence.

6.  On 9 January 2007, the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals corrected the applicant's general court-martial order by deleting charge III (obtaining services under false pretenses) and replacing it with Article 121 (larceny).

7.  The U.S. Army Court of Military Review decision is not available for review.  However, Headquarters, U.S. Army Field Artillery Center and Fort Sill, General Court-Martial Order Number 284, dated 3 October 2007, shows the applicant's sentence had been finally affirmed, Article 71(c) having been complied with, and the bad conduct discharge would be executed.

8.  On 20 December 2007, he was issued a bad conduct discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 3, as a result of court-martial.  He completed a total of 3 years, 8 months, and 22 days of creditable active service with 459 days of lost time.

9.  There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD or any other mental condition prior to his discharge.

10.  He provided a letter from his therapist, dated 16 December 2013, which states he was evaluated in December 2013 and the symptoms he reported during the evaluation were consistent with individuals who meet the criteria for PTSD.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Chapter 3 states a Soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or a special court-martial.  The appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed.

	b.  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 member's 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.

	c.  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.

12.  Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process.  In accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the ABCMR is not empowered to set aside a conviction.  Rather, it is only empowered to change the severity of the sentence imposed in the court-martial process and then only if clemency is determined to be appropriate.  Clemency is an act of mercy or instance of leniency to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed.

13.  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 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 nosologic classification scheme.  Although controversial when first introduced, the PTSD diagnosis has filled an important gap in psychiatric theory and practice.  From a 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."

14.  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.

15.  The DSM fifth edition 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; and/or

		(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; and/or

		(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 and/or

		(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); and/or

		(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; and/or

		(6)  sleep disturbance.

	f.  Criterion F – Duration:  Persistence of symptoms (in Criteria B, C, D, and E) for more than 1 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.

16.  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 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 Soldiers' 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.

17.  In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRB's) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NR's) 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 to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the character of the applicant's service.

18.  BCM/NR's 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 in character 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?

19.  Although the Department of Defense 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 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 service characterization.  BCM/NR's will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a character 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.  BCM/NR's 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 contends he has suffered from PTSD since his deployment to Iraq in 2004 and he provided a letter from his therapist who states he was evaluated in December 2013 and the symptoms he reported during the evaluation were consistent with individuals who meet the criteria for PTSD.  However, there is insufficient evidence to show PTSD symptoms were attributed to his time in service, and the severity of misconduct precipitating his discharge does not mitigate his overall conduct.

2.  A trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offenses charged.  His conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted.

3.  His record of service included one general court-martial conviction and 459 days of lost time.  As a result, his record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant's service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable or a general discharge.

4.  Any redress by this Board of the finality of a court-martial conviction is prohibited by law.  The Board is only empowered to change a discharge if clemency is determined to be appropriate to moderate the severity of the sentence imposed.  Given the applicant's undistinguished record of service and absent any mitigating factors, the type of discharge directed and the reasons were therefore appropriate.  As a result, clemency is not warranted in this case.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____X___  ____X___  ____X___ DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.



      ___________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)                                         AR20140007024



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140007024



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1