IN THE CASE OF:  	  

		BOARD DATE:  26 February 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140011468 


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 correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show all of his awards; correction of the narrative reason for his separation; and an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states that he took his responsibilities as a Soldier seriously.  He was recognized for his duty performance on several occasions and he volunteered for overseas service.

   a.  He was assigned to the 2nd Supply and Transportation Battalion 
(S&T BN), 2nd Infantry Division in the Republic of Korea (ROK) in 1979–1980.  He completed missions along the demilitarized zone and he should qualify for the Korea Defense Service Medal (KDSM), Presidential Unit Citation (PUC), Meritorious Unit Commendation (MUC), and Cold War Recognition Certificate.

   b.  During his assignment in the ROK, he began to experience a lot of difficulties that he now believes were related to post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  He was seen by Doctor W____ (who was either a psychologist or psychiatrist) to address some of the problems.  The doctor attributed the applicant's problems to being a newlywed who just wanted to be with his wife.  The doctor didn't address the applicant's nightmares, withdrawal from his family, constant feelings of anxiety and nervousness, or difficulty sleeping.


   c.   He states that he self-medicated with alcohol for more than 3 years and it placed a great deal of stress on his family.  He adds that he still thinks about some of the things that happened during his time in the ROK.  He believes the Army did him and his family a disservice by not acknowledging the difficulties he was having at the time and failing to diagnose him with PTSD.  He concludes that the difficulties he had during his military service were directly related to PTSD and a general, under honorable conditions discharge was not warranted.  He adds that he is a Christian man of honor and integrity, and he believes he deserves an honorable discharge.

3.  The applicant provides copies of four letters, his reassignment orders, and his DD Form 214.

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 16 February 1978 for a period of 3 years.  He was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 64C (Motor Transport Operator).  He was promoted to specialist four/pay grade E-4 on 
2 June 1980.

3.  The applicant's DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows in –

* item 5 (Oversea Service):  Korea beginning 6 January 1980
* item 9 (Awards, Decorations and Campaigns):   Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle (M-16) Bar
* item 35 (Record of Assignments) –

* Driver (Duty MOS (DMOS) 64C1O) – Headquarters, Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth, KS, from 20 May 1978 through 4 December 1979
* Dispatcher (DMOS 64C1O) – Company B, 2nd S&T BN, 2nd Infantry Division (ROK), effective 11 January 1980

4.  He accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on two occasions, as follows –

* for disobeying a lawful order, on 9 February 1980, by visiting a billet in which he was not authorized to reside by virtue of sex
* for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 11 July 1980 to 30 October 1980

5.  The applicant returned to military control at Fort Carson, CO, on 30 October 1980.  He was reduced to private first class/pay grade E-3 on 21 November 1980.

6.  A DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 12 November 1980, shows the applicant was evaluated by Lieutenant Colonel J____ C. P____, Medical Doctor.  The applicant was found to be fully alert and oriented, his mood was unremarkable, thinking process clear, thought content normal, and memory good.  He was also found to be mentally responsible for his behavior and that he could distinguish right from wrong.  It also shows the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings.  Accordingly, the applicant was cleared for administrative action deemed appropriate by the commander.

7.  On 18 November 1980, the applicant's company commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him under the provisions of (UP) Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13 (Separation for Unsuitability), paragraph 13-4c, based on apathy (lack of appropriate interest), defective attitudes, and inability to expend effort constructively.  The applicant was advised of his rights and the separation procedures involved.

8.  On 20 November 1980, the applicant acknowledged the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects, the rights available to him, and the effect of a waiver of his rights.
	
	a.  He acknowledged that he had been afforded the opportunity to consult with appointed counsel for consultation, military counsel of his own choice if he/she was reasonably available, or civilian counsel at his own expense; however, he declined the opportunity.

   b.  He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers and also waived personal appearance before a board of officers.

   c.  He indicated that he would not submit statements in his own behalf.

	d.  He indicated that he understood that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in the event a general, under honorable conditions discharge was issued to him.

   e.  He was informed that, if he received a discharge certificate/character of service which was less than honorable, he could make application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or the ABCMR for upgrade of his discharge. However an act of consideration by either board did not imply his discharge would be upgraded.

	f.  The applicant and his counsel placed their signatures on the document.

9.  On 1 December 1980, the company commander recommended approval of the applicant's separation action.

10.  The separation authority accepted the applicant's waiver of a hearing before a board of officers and he waived the requirement for counseling and rehabilitation measures.  The separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge of the applicant UP AR 635-200, paragraph 13-4c, and directed that the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

11.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under honorable conditions (general) on 2 February 1981.  He completed 2 years and 8 months of total active duty service this period.  It also shows in:

* item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized):  Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle (M-16) Bar
* item 25 (Separation Authority):  AR 635-200, paragraph 13-4c
* item 26 (Separation Code):  JMJ
* item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation):  Unsuitability – apathy, defective attitude or inability to expend efforts constructively

12.  A review of the applicant's military personnel record failed to reveal evidence that the applicant was authorized or awarded any individual awards or decorations, or that the units he was assigned to were authorized any unit awards during the period of service under review.

13.  A review of the applicant's military personnel record failed to reveal any evidence that the applicant applied to the ADRB for review of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
14.  His medical records are not available for review with this case.  The available records are void of, and he failed to provide, evidence showing he was diagnosed with PTSD as a result of his military service.

15.  In support of his request the applicant provides the following documents.

   a.  Two letters of appreciation issued to the applicant by the Transportation Officer, Transportation Division, Fort Leavenworth, KS, dated 22 March 1979 and
29 June 1979, in which he extend his appreciation for the applicant's outstanding performance during two transportation support missions.

   b.  A letter of appreciation to the applicant from the Chairman, Cub Scout Pack 3066, Fort Leavenworth, KS, dated 3 October 1979, extending his appreciation for the applicant's assistance to the post cub scout program by transporting and unloading a semi-trailer full of newspapers.

   c.  A letter of commendation to the applicant from the Deputy Installation Commander, Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth, KS, dated
14 November 1979, commending the applicant for his exemplary conduct and military appearance as a member of the unit's funeral detail during the month of November 1979.

   d.  Headquarters, Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth, KS, Orders Number 200-3, dated 16 October 1979, that reassigned the applicant to Company B, 2nd S&T BN, 2nd Infantry Division (ROK) on 4 January 1979 (sic).

16.  AR 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning military awards and decorations.   

	a.  The KDSM is authorized for award to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who have served on active duty in support of the defense of the ROK.  The period of eligibility is 28 July 1954 to a date to be determined by the Secretary of Defense.

	b.  The PUC is awarded to a unit for extraordinary heroism in action.  The unit must display such gallantry, determination, and esprit de corps in accomplishing its mission as would warrant award of the Distinguished Service Cross to an individual.

   c.  The MUC is authorized for units and/or detachments and is awarded to a unit for exceptionally meritorious conduct in performance of outstanding services for at least 6 continuous months in support of military operations.  
	d.  The Cold War Recognition Certificate is not governed by the provisions of AR 600-8-22 and, as a result, is not shown on a separation document.  The Secretary of Defense approved awarding the Cold War Recognition Certificate to all members of the armed forces and qualified federal government civilian personnel who faithfully and honorably served the United States anytime during the Cold War era, which is defined as 2 September 1945 to 26 December 1991.  The applicant may submit a request in writing to Commander, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, Cold War Recognition, ATTN: AHRC-CWRS, 
1600 Spearhead Division Avenue, Fort Knox, KY  40122.  Based on this information, the applicant's request for the Cold War Recognition Certificate will not be discussed any further in this Record of Proceedings.

17.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 670-1 (Uniform and Insignia – Guide to the Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia) provides the implementation procedures for wear and appearance of Army uniforms and insignia.  Chapter 22 (Wear of Decorations, Service Medals, Badges, Unit Awards, and Appurtenances), Table 22-1 (Authority for wear – U.S. unit award emblems), Footnote 2 shows that a Soldier may wear the unit award temporarily if the individual was not present with the unit during the period cited, but was subsequently assigned to the unit.  Soldiers may wear the unit award only while assigned to the cited unit; however, the unit award is not recorded in the Soldier's military service record.

18.  AR 635-200, in effect at that time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

   a.  Chapter 13 outlines the procedures and guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel found to be unsuitable for further military service.  Paragraph 13-4c provides that a member is subject to separation for unsuitability based on apathy (lack of appropriate interest), defective attitudes, and inability to expend effort constructively.  While these traits may be manifested in conjunction with physical defects, or mental, or organic diseases, including psychoneurosis, they are not necessarily produced by the physical or disease process.  On the other hand, members considered for elimination may attempt to excuse immature, inadequate, and undisciplined behavior on the basis of minor or nondisabling illnesses.  The presence of a physical or mental disease or defect-producing impairment of function insufficient to warrant separation under the provisions of AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) and related regulations is no bar to discharge for unsuitability.  An individual separated because of unsuitability will be furnished an honorable or general discharge certificate, as warranted by their military record.
   
   b.  Chapter 3, 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.

19.  AR 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.  It identifies the SPD code of "JMJ" as the appropriate code to assign to enlisted Soldiers discharged UP AR 635-200, chapter 13, paragraph 13-4c, for unsuitability – apathy, defective attitude, or inability to expend efforts constructively.

20.  AR 635-5 (Separation Documents) at the time prescribed the separation documents that must be prepared for Soldiers on retirement, discharge, release from active duty service, or control of the Active Army.  

   a.  The purpose of a separation document is to provide the individual with documentary evidence of their military service at the time of separation.  Therefore, it is important the information entered thereon is complete and accurate as of that date.

   b.  The regulation contains item-by-item instructions for completing the DD Form 214.  It states for:
   
    	(1)  item 13, list awards and decorations for all periods of service in the priority sequence specified in AR 600-8-22;

    	(2)  item 25, enter the regulatory or other authority cited in directives authorizing separation;

    	(3)  item 26, enter the proper SPD representing the specific authority for separation; and

    	(5)  item 28, enter the narrative reason for separation as shown in 
AR 635-5-1 based on the regulatory or other authority.

21.  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." 

22.  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.

23.  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. 

24.  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 (UOTHC) 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.  

25.  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.

26.  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?

27.  Although the DoD acknowledges 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 contends his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show all of his awards, a narrative reason for separation based on PTSD, and an honorable characterization of service based on his record of military service and the failure to diagnose him with PTSD.

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was assigned to Company B,
2nd S&T BN, 2nd Infantry Division in the ROK from 6 January 1980 until 11 July 1980.  This service qualified him for the KDSM.  Thus, his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show this service medal.

3.  There is no evidence of record that shows any unit that the applicant was assigned to was awarded the PUC or the MUC during the period of service under review.  Therefore, he is not entitled to correction of his records to show either of these unit awards.

4.  His records are void of and he provided no evidence showing he was diagnosed with PTSD then or now.

5.  The applicant's discharge UP AR 635-200, chapter 13, paragraph 13-4c, was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations in effect at the time with no violation of his rights.  The evidence of record shows the applicant's mental status evaluation was available for the commander to consider any mental health issues the applicant may have had at the time of discharge.  The applicant was discharged based on unsuitability for apathy, defective attitude or inability to expend efforts constructively, with a general under honorable conditions characterization of service.  Considering all the facts of this case, the narrative reason for his separation and characterization of discharge were appropriate and equitable.

6.  During the period of service under review, the applicant accepted NJP for disobeying a lawful order and for being AWOL from 11 July through 29 October 1980 (i.e., 111 days), and he was reduced to PFC (E-3) prior to his discharge.  Thus, the applicant's record of service during the period under review did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel and he is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

7.  Thus, it is concluded that the narrative reason for his separation and characterization of discharge as recorded on his DD Form 214 are correct.

8.  Therefore, in view of all of the foregoing, it would be appropriate to correct his DD Form 214 to show his awards, as recommended below.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

____X___  ____X___  ____X___ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by adding to item 13 of his DD Form 214 the Korea Defense Service Medal.


2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to the Presidential Unit Citation, the Meritorious Unit Commendation, the narrative reason for separation, and the characterization of service.




      ___________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)                                         AR20140011468



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140011468



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1