BOARD DATE:	  5 May 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140012856


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 he was medically discharged by reason of combat-related post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

2.  The applicant states when he returned from combat, he wasn't aware he had combat-related PTSD.  He contends PTSD was a catalyst for his misconduct.

3.  The applicant provides:

* his DD Form 214 for the period ending 5 January 2006
* his DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document – Armed Forces of the United States)
* his DD Form 1966 (Record of Military Processing – Armed Forces of the United States)
* his Statement for Enlistment – U.S. Army Enlistment Program – U.S. Army Delayed Entry Program (DEP)
* sixteen pages of Progress Notes extracted from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VISTA) network 
* an untitled listing of medications
* a copy of his VA Rating Decision, dated 12 December 2013
* a copy of his VA decision letter
* two other VA letters addressing the status of his outstanding claim(s)


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 4 September 2003; however, it appears he did not enter active duty until 24 September 2003.  He completed his initial entry training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 88M (Motor Transport Operator).  The highest rank/grade he attained during his period of active military service was specialist (SPC)/E-4.

3.  His record shows he was counseled on the following dates prior to his deployment:

* on 29 September 2004, for a domestic disturbance that caused him to miss the morning formation and unit movement the following day
* on 12 October 2004, for being late to morning formation
* on 15 October 2004, for being late to morning formation

4.  His record shows he deployed to Kuwait and Iraq during the period               22 October 2004 through 26 April 2005.  During this period, on 5 November 2004, he was counseled for failing to report for morning formation.

5.  Following his redeployment from Iraq, he was counseled on the following dates:

* on 8 June 2005, for failing to report to two morning formations
* on 13 June 2005, for being late for physical training and for failing to report to formation
* on 24 June 2005, 30 June 2005, 12 July 2005, and 16 August 2005, for failing to report to formation 
* on 17 August 2005, for domestic disturbances that occurred on 13 August 2005 and 17 August 2005
* on 31 August 2005, for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 14-12b (Act or Patterns of Misconduct) 

6.  It appears he underwent a mental status evaluation in September 2005.  The results of his mental status evaluation were recorded on a DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), wherein the examining psychiatrist/ psychologist noted:  

* the applicant's behavior was normal
* he was fully alert and oriented
* his mood or affect was unremarkable
* his thinking process and thought content were clear and normal
* his memory was good
* he possessed the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings
* he possessed no mental health problems that required disposition through medical channels 
* he appeared appropriate in thought and behavior and was not deemed at imminent risk for harm to himself or others
* he was cleared for any administrative action deemed necessary by his command

7.  On 11 October 2005, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failing to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty on or about 14 September 2005.  Specifically, he missed morning formation.  On 20 October 2005, he again missed morning formation, and as a consequence, his previously-suspended punishment imposed on 11 October 2005 was vacated.

8.  On 3 November 2005, he was again counseled with regard to his command's decision to recommend his separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b.

9.  On 14 November 2005, his immediate commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, by reason of a pattern of misconduct.  His immediate commander cited, as the reason for his proposed action, the applicant's conduct, which was not representative of a Soldier.  He recommended the applicant receive a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation notification memorandum.

10.  On 16 November 2005, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant requested representation by counsel, appearance before an administrative separation board, and to submit statements in his own behalf.

11.  On 29 November 2005, he was counseled because he had been given sufficient time to compile statements for submission, in accordance with his elections, and he had failed to do so.  He further informed the counseling official that statements in his own behalf would not be forthcoming.

12.  On 22 December 2005, his immediate commander recommended his discharge from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, and further recommended he receive a general discharge.

13.  On 22 December 2005, the approval authority approved the recommendation for the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, and directed he receive a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

14.  On 5 January 2006, he was discharged accordingly under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, by reason of a pattern of misconduct.  He completed 2 years, 3 months, and 12 days of active service.  His DD Form 214 confirms he was discharged under honorable conditions.

15.  His record is void of any documentation that shows he suffered from, or was diagnosed with, a medical or mental condition during his period of active military service, and prior to his date of separation, of such severity as to warrant his disposition through medical channels, specifically, the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES).

16.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge.  On 19 April 2013, the ADRB determined that his reason for discharge and character of service were both proper and equitable and voted unanimously to deny his request for an upgrade.

17.  He provides numerous medical progress notes from the VA that show he was diagnosed with PTSD.

18.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and procedures for separating personnel for misconduct.  Specific categories included minor infractions, a pattern of misconduct, involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities, commission of a serious offense, and drug abuse.  Although an honorable or general is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) is normally considered appropriate (emphasis added).

	a.  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.  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." 

20.  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.

21.  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. 

22.  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 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.  

23.  In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) 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 (emphasis added).

24.  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?

25.  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 (emphasis added).  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 (emphasis added).  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 (emphasis added).  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 request for correction of his DD Form 214 to show he was medically discharged by reason of combat-related PTSD was carefully considered.

2.  His PTSD diagnosis has been noted; however, a post-service PTSD diagnosis, by itself, is not sufficient to prove an error or injustice in his separation processing as it occurred.  
3.  His record is void of evidence and he has failed to provide evidence that shows his medical and mental status was impaired at the time of his separation processing to the extent that required his entry into the Army PDES.  Without such evidence, there is no basis to substantiate an error or injustice in his separation processing, as it occurred, and no basis to show his separation should have been based on medical reasons.

4.  The evidence of record shows his administrative discharge was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no violation of his rights.  Although he could have been recommended for a UOTHC discharge for misconduct, his unit commander elected to recommend a discharge characterization of general, under honorable conditions and the separation authority discharged him based on that recommendation.  The fact that he was discharged with a more favorable characterization indicates his commander took into consideration the entirety of his military service and the severity of his misconduct, to include any mental health issues he may have had at the time of discharge.  Accordingly, his discharge was appropriate under the circumstances.

5.  An honorable character of service is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel and an under honorable conditions character of service is appropriate for those Soldiers whose military record is satisfactory, but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  The applicant's military service was marred with misconduct.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant an upgrade of his 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)                                         AR20150000002



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140012856



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1