BOARD DATE:	  15 January 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140008811 


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 upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  He states he was 17 years of age at the time he entered the Army and was immediately thrown into a camp with returning Vietnam veterans.  He says he knows now that his fellow Soldiers had undiagnosed degrees of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and subjected him to bullying and horror stories of death and killings.  He offers that he often found himself having nightmares of being on the front-line in Vietnam because of all he heard in the camp which he contributes, in effect, to his condition of PTSD.  He states he has yet to recover from that experience.  He adds that after being court-martialed for fighting, he was sent for retraining and then back to boot camp for two months.  He states he was told by senior officers that he could opt for an early out and his discharge would be considered honorable after six months.

3.  He provides a self-authored statement.

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 17 September 1975 at the age of 17 years and 11 months.

3.  On 20 September 1976, the applicant was tried by a special court-martial.  He was found guilty of the charge and specification of committing an assault upon a Soldier by cutting him on the right arm with a dangerous weapon.  The approved sentence provided for reduction to pay grade E-1, confinement at hard labor for two months, and forfeiture of $150.00 pay per month for two months.

4.  On 4 August 1977, charges of larceny pending against the applicant were withdrawn without prejudice to the government.

5.  On 4 August 1977, the applicant's commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to discharge him from the U.S. Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13 (Misconduct), based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  The applicant was advised of his rights and instructed that he must consult with counsel.

6.  On 5 August 1977, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13. 

   a.  He acknowledged that military legal counsel for consultation was available to assist him.

   b.  He was advised he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in the event a general, under honorable conditions discharge is issued to him.  He was also advised that as the result of issuance of an undesirable discharge under conditions other than honorable, he may be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and States laws, and that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

   c.  The applicant waived consideration of his case by a board of officers and personal appearance before a board of officers.  He also elected not to submit statements in his own behalf and waived representation by military counsel.  
   d.  The applicant and his legal counsel each placed their signature on the document.

7.  On 8 August 1977, the applicant received non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being absent without leave from on or about 1 August 1977 to on or about 3 August 1977.  His punishment consisted of reduction to pay grade E-1 (suspended for 90 days), forfeiture of $87.00 pay (suspended for 90 days), and seven days duty at the Correctional Custody Facility.

8.  On 8 August 1977, the company commander recommended the applicant be discharged from the U.S. Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13.  The reasons for the recommended action were the applicant's demonstrated misconduct of frequently being late for formations and duty, disrespect to the noncommissioned officers appointed over him, failure to report for work, and resistance to all attempts to rehabilitate him.  The brigade commander also recommended approval of the separation action.

9.  On 5 October 1977, the separation authority waived further counseling and rehabilitative requirements and approved the applicant's separation.  The commander also directed the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and issued an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.

10.  His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 16 November 1977 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13-5a, with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions.  He was credited with completing 2 years and 11 days of net active service with 50 days of lost time.

11.  On 3 January 1979, he appealed to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to upgrade his discharge.  On 16 October 1980, the ADRB denied his request for a discharge upgrade citing that he was properly discharged.

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

	a.  Paragraph 13-5a of the regulation in effect at the time provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

   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.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier's separation specifically allows such characterization.
   
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 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." 

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 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. 

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 (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.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant argues, in effect, that his discharge should be upgraded because his indiscipline was based on PTSD. 

2.  There is no evidence and he did not provide any to show that he was diagnosed with PTSD, or that he raised his mental conditions as a possible defense at the time.  He provides no evidence now to show he has been diagnosed with a service-connected PTSD or other mental condition.  The evidence of record further shows he was discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-5a, based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities was administratively correct and in compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the time.  

3.  He also maintains that he was told his discharge would automatically be upgraded after six months.  However, there are no provisions in the Army regulations for automatically upgrading a discharge after a period of time has elapsed.  He must provide evidence to prove that the discharge was rendered unjustly, in error, or that there were mitigating circumstances which warrants the upgrade.  Therefore, his contention that his discharge should have been upgraded after six months is not sufficient as a basis to upgrade his discharge now.

4.  The available evidence confirms that all requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  The record further shows his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.

5.  Based on this record of indiscipline, his service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to a general or an honorable discharge.

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 that 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)                                         AR20140008811





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140008811



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1