BOARD DATE:	  30 December 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140013344 


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 reconsideration of his earlier request to correct his records by:

	a.  removing from his records the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), dated 24 September 2012, and all associated document and actions;

	b.  restoring him to the Sergeant First Class (SFC)/E-7 Promotion List and promoting him at the originally scheduled time; and 

	c.  paying him all resulting back pay.

2.  The applicant defers to counsel for statements and submissions in support of the request.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests reconsideration of the previous case.

2.  Counsel states while the request principally addresses the removal of the nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the UCMJ, it also requests the removal of all associated administrative actions.  Counsel contends:

	a.  The applicant's Post-Deployment Health Assessment (PDHA) shows he experienced stressors during combat that caused his chronic post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

	b.  Army medical records confirm he had untreated PTSD prior to the events that led to the NJP.

	c.  PTSD was the proximate cause of the impulsivity that led to the NJP.
 
	d.  The NJP is the result of the omission of relevant evidence about his PTSD. 

* the original Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Record of Proceedings noted there was insufficient evidence to show the misconduct was the result of PTSD
* he was undiagnosed and untreated at the time of the misconduct
* all of the circumstances were not known, resulting in a clear injustice that is the regulatory basis for setting aside the NJP  

	e.  The NJP was essentially unfair because the nature of the applicant's PTSD and its effects upon his behavior was unknown and unknowable to his chain of command due to the fact that it was undiagnosed.

3.  Counsel provides documents identified by counsel's system as – 

* Enclosure 1 – PDHA, dated 20 October 2006
* Enclosure 2 – medical records covering the period 4 April 2013 through  19 March 2014
* Enclosure 3 – medical record dated 19 March 2014
* Enclosure 4 – a letter from Jeannie Monnier, PhD., dated 16 June 2014
* Enclosure 5 – Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)/Department of Defense (DOD) Clinical Practice Guidelines for PTSD, pages 3-6
* Enclosure 6 – "Prevalence Estimates of Combat-Related PTSD," Journal of Psychiatry, January 2010
* Enclosure 7 – "PTSD in the Military: Need for Legislative Improvement," Journal of Law and Health, 2010
* Enclosure 8 – "Challenges and Success in Dissemination of Evidence –Based Treatments for PTSD: Lessons Learned from Prolonged Exposure Therapy for PTSD," Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Volume 14, No. 2, 2013
* Enclosure 9 – "Invisible Wounds of War: Psychological and Cognitive Injuries – Their Consequences, and Services to Assist Recovery," Rand Corporation 
* Enclosure 10 – "The Veterans Health Administration and PTSD and Traumatic Brain Injury Among Recent Combat Veterans," Congressional Budget Office, February 2012
* Enclosure 11 – the applicant's Enlisted Record Brief (ERB)
* Enclosure 12 – medical record dated 1 March 2013
* Enclosure 13 – medical record dated 4 April 2013
* Enclosure 14 – medical record dated 9 May 2013
* Enclosure 15 – medical record dated 11 February 2014
* Enclosure 16 – Curriculum Vitae of Jeannie Monnier, Ph. D
* Enclosure 17 – 10 References for Dr. Monnier's letter to the ABCMR
* Enclosure 18 – VA/DOD Clinical Practice Guidelines for PTSD, pages         24 and 25
* Enclosure 19 – "Substance Use Disorders in Patients with PTSD," Journal of Psychiatry, Volume 158, Volume No. 8, August 2011
* Enclosure 20 – ABCMR letter, dated 6 August 2013

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR20130006083, on 1 August 2013.

2.  The original consideration shows: 

	a.  The applicant was a staff sergeant (SSG), pay grade E-6, assigned as a drill sergeant with Company C, 1st Battalion, 13th Infantry Regiment, at Fort Jackson, SC since November 2010.  

	b.  On 13 June 2012, he received a letter of concern from his battalion commander.  That letter, as provided by the applicant, states the actions of the applicant in the performance of his duties as a drill sergeant were of concern.  The letter specifically stated he had referred to a Soldier in training as a "fat body" and "cheeseburger."  Furthermore, he made Soldiers in training "tap" their heads against a wall locker as part of corrective training.  Both of these actions were in violation of Training and Doctrine Command regulations against hazing and would not be tolerated.

	c.  On 20 July 2012, he received event-oriented counseling by his first sergeant.  The battalion commander had pulled him aside for using foul language toward the Soldiers during physical training (PT).  The commander further reminded him about earlier briefings that all drill sergeants had received regarding language used toward Soldiers during the conduct of training.  The commander asked him how he expected to teach Soldiers about Army values and hold them accountable when he was not leading by example.  The commander stated he would not tolerate this type of behavior.  If he continued to use such language, he would recommend UCMJ action against him.

	d.  On 31 August 2012, four female Soldiers each completed sworn statements concerning comments he directed at them in the dining facility (DFAC).  They were in the middle of eating their dinner and he was talking to them.  The essence of their statements included:

		(1)  He was joking around with us as we ate.  He was talking about how some Soldier's girlfriends were going to look good at graduation.  He continued to joke around and make funny threats to us in a childish manner.  He then approached a Soldier and said, "you [Soldier's name] it might be your mom, she might look good as f---, I'll f--- her."  At first some people laughed; but then they realized from the Soldier's facial expression that she was "pissed."  Little did he know that her mother was deceased and in heaven.  To hear those words come out of a drill sergeant's mouth is appalling.  It is disrespectful, degrading, immature, sleazy, and disgusting.  He needs to think about what he says before it comes out.  Not only did he hurt her, but it hurt all of the drill sergeants' reputations, especially his own.  She is expecting an apology from him and hopes he will learn a lesson.  His vocabulary is outrageous sometimes.  It needs to be corrected sooner or later before a Soldier loses his or her military bearing.

		(2)  He said that he likes it when a girl takes him out to dinner, pays for dinner and then he likes to f--- them afterwards.  He said that if our moms looked good then he'd f--- them.  He said to the Soldier that would be your mom if she looked good.  He then said he would do that to any mom.  He then tried to quote from a movie and said he would go around and just f--- any girl he sees.

		(3)  We were in the DFAC and he was making comments to us while we were all sitting down eating and in front of the whole platoon.  He stated that he would have fellow male Soldier's girlfriends take him to dinner at the Olive Garden.  He then turned around and stated that maybe one of our moms looks good on graduation and he would f--- her.  He then turned to Private [Soldier's name] and stated that maybe it would be her mom.  Private [Soldier's name] became really upset and finished eating and left the DFAC.  Once we got back to the platoon 4 bay, that Soldier left formation and went to the sleep bay.  When he was informed she was upstairs, he said "OK" and walked away.
	
		(4)  In the middle of eating dinner while he was walking around the hall, as he always did, he said he and one of our girlfriends are going to the Olive Garden and a movie.  She is going to be looking real good and if she wants to take him out and pay that is fine by him.  It might even be your mom, indicating a particular Soldier, who's looking good and he's going to f--- her.

	d.  An investigating officer was appointed on 1 September 2012.

		(1) The same four Soldiers again made sworn statements essentially the same as their initial ones.

		(2) His sworn statement said, "around 1800 yesterday evening our company went to chow.  As my Soldiers were eating I talked to them.  Things that was said was pertaining to their girlfriends and boyfriends back home.  I told them that they had moved on and they are running around on them and that they should focus their minds here on BCT.  I also talked about on family day their loved ones will bring Jody Boy or Jody Girl with them to see them.  I also said that on family day some mothers liked to talk to drill sergeants.  I said that if one of their mothers tried to take me on a date I might do it.  I said this out of spite.  I then said that you never know Soldier we might even "F_ _ _."  One Soldier looked offended.  Her name is [Soldier's name].  So when my platoon formed up outside I looked for her and said I was sorry.  This morning at FTW I pulled her to the side and apologized again."

   e.  The investigating officer found he made an inappropriate comment that was unbecoming of a noncommissioned officer (NCO).  He admitted to wrong-doing but denied the comment was directed toward that Soldier.

		(1)  The allegation of verbal trainee abuse toward [Soldier's name] was substantiated by the interviews and sworn statements.  He acknowledged the language that was used.

		(2)  The investigating officer recommended he receive a counseling statement and/or a letter of concern.  Additionally, as a form of corrective training, he should write the trainee a letter of apology about why his actions were wrong.

	f.  On 4 September 2012, both the company and battalion commanders recommended his removal from the drill sergeant program based on his infractions of training policies that were adverse in nature and disqualified him from future consideration for the program.  They also recommended that he not be permitted to retain either the Drill Sergeant Badge or the special qualification identifier (SQI) of "X" for drill sergeant.
	
	g.  On 5 September 2012, his battalion commander counseled him concerning his failure to obey a lawful order and his use of profanity around initial entry training (IET) Soldiers on 20 July 2012 and 31 August 2012; and

		(1)  The incident of making vulgar, obscene and inappropriate remarks to Soldiers on 31 August 2012 was substantiated, resulting in a loss of trust in his ability to lead Soldiers.

		(2).  He was informed that the brigade commander was the approval authority to remove any NCO from the drill sergeant program.  The battalion commander was recommending that he not retain either his Drill Sergeant Badge or the SQI of "X."

		(3)  He was informed that he had been suspended from the drill sergeant program pending a final determination.  He was reassigned to the battalion S3 (Operations) and was not to have any unsupervised contact with any IET Soldiers.  He was suspended from all favorable actions pending disposition of the charge of failing to obey a lawful order or regulation.

		(4)  He acknowledged agreement with the counseling statement, signed, and dated on the same day.

3.  On 14 September 2012, the battalion commander initiated action to bar him from reenlistment based on his letter of concern, dated 13 June 2012; the commander's inquiry, dated 3 September 2012; and the request for removal from the drill sergeant program, dated 4 September 2012.  He indicated he had been furnished a copy of the commander's recommendation that he be barred, he had been counseled, and he desired to submit a statement in his own behalf.  The applicant signed and dated the DA Form 4126 on 18 September 2012.

4.  On 20 September 2012, he wrote a memorandum for the brigade commander, wherein he stated:

	a.  As an NCO, he took the initiative whenever there was a mission or task that needed to be completed.  No matter the situation, he made sure the task was completed above the standard and always in a punctual manner.  He had dedicated 9 years of his life to assisting the growth and development of himself, his peers, subordinates, and superiors.  His ability to lead and train Soldiers was something every NCO should strive to accomplish.
	
	b.  He was selected for promotion to SFC from the secondary zone with only 8 years in the service.  He had earned his bachelor's degree and was currently working on his master's degree.
	c.  He had completed three tours of duty in Iraq and has been awarded the – 

* Bronze Star Medal
* Joint Service Commendation Medal
* Army Commendation Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster
* Joint Service Achievement Medal
* Army Achievement Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters

	d.  He had completed the – 

* Master Resilience Training Course
* Air Assault School
* Senior Leaders Course
* Drill Sergeant School
* Airborne School
* Advanced Leaders Course
	
	e.  He highlighted the above areas of his personal life and career to inform the commander that he was very responsible, dedicated, and extremely driven.  His commitment and dedication to military service had been proven through his work ethic.  He displayed and lived by the Army values on a day-to-day basis.  He was a valuable asset to the Army, as well as to his unit and should be allowed to continue his formidable work.  If given the opportunity to overcome this failure and to avoid the bar to reenlistment, he truly believed and desired to continue to serve without jeopardizing his long-term goals of continuing to grow and develop into a future command sergeant major.

5.  The DA Form 2627 and the applicant's rebuttal and appeal show:

	a.  On 20 September 2012, the battalion commander informed him that he was considering whether he should receive NJP for his misconduct on 31 August 2012, by communicating to a Soldier certain indecent language, to wit: "Your Mom might be looking good as F--- at graduation, I'll F--- her."

	b.  The applicant did not demand trial by court-martial; requested a closed hearing; did not request a person to speak on his behalf; and indicated that matters in defense, extenuation, and/or mitigation would be presented in person.  

	c.  In his rebuttal, he admitted he had said something that was unprofessional and in poor taste; but, his comments were not directed specifically at anyone.  He argued that it would have made no sense (to believe he had) singled out a specific Soldier or the mother of a specific Soldier.  What he did was a joke, though admittedly in poor taste.  He further stated that the reactions of the female Soldier caused him to understand how his comments could be hurtful and inappropriate to some people.

	d.  On 27 September 2012, the battalion commander, found him guilty of using indecent language in violation of Article 134 of the UCMJ.  He imposed punishment of reduction to the rank/grade of sergeant (SGT)/E-5, forfeiture of $1442 per month for 2 months and restriction for 45 days.  The forfeiture and restriction were suspended and automatically remitted if not revoked before      27 March 2013.  He directed filing of the DA Form 2627 in the restricted section of his record.
	
	e.  On 28 September 2012, he stated in his memorandum of appeal that he was extremely unprofessional by using vulgarity; however, he did not intend to offend anyone.  He was trying to make a joke and was sorry for the hurt he caused.  He was especially ashamed because he had been previously counseled about his language.  He took full responsibility for those lapses in judgment and knew the use of inappropriate language can hurt Soldiers.  Otherwise, he had displayed an impeccable record of excellence over the course of his 9-year career and he had lived the Army values.  A reduction in rank would destroy his career.  He requested that the reduction be suspended along with the other portions of his punishment.

	f.  The Office of the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) opined that the NJP proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulation and the punishment imposed was unjust or disproportionate to the offense committed.  The applicant's appeal was considered and denied.    

6.  The applicant's counsel made an impassioned appeal concluding that the applicant's career should not be utterly destroyed over this incident of using foul language.
 
7.  The brigade commander officially notified him of his intention to remove him from the Drill Sergeant Program.  He had 7 days to submit matters in rebuttal to this action.  

8.  On 15 October 2012, the brigade commander removed him from the Drill Sergeant Program based on misconduct.  He also terminated his authorization to retain the Drill Sergeant Badge, SQI "X" and Special Duty Assignment Pay.

9.  On 15 October 2012, he acknowledged receipt of the brigade commander's removal of him from the Drill Sergeant Program and indicated he would appeal the action to the Commanding General, Fort Jackson, SC.

10.  On 18 October 2012, his legal counsel wrote another memorandum to add information to his earlier request for reconsideration pertaining to the NJP.  This included:

	a.  The commander failed to adequately mention or even explore his financial situation;

	b.  he and his family would be negatively impacted by his reduction in rank;

	c.  his appeal may have been denied because of a perception he lacked a certain level of morality; and 

	d.  he had paid more each month to his ex-wife then he had to so that their son would be alright.  He did this even though he had to accrue substantial credit card debt.

11.  He provided five letters of support from three Army NCOs, an Air Force NCO, and a chief warrant officer five (CW5) that were written between 
5 September and 19 October 2012.  In summary, they essentially state:

	a.  he is a very competent and motivated leader who is always setting the example;

	b.  he has the intestinal fortitude, passion, and pride to train Soldiers;

	c.  his trustworthiness was never questioned and his loyalty was always to his subordinates, peers, superiors, and the unit;

	d.  he has shown commitment to the unit by devoting countless hours to the well-being of Soldiers regardless of any issues he may have had himself;

	e.  he is the kind of leader that must be retained; and

	f.  his demeanor, appearance, attitude, and moral character were a perfect fit to mold young Soldiers in today's military.

12.  On 22 October 2012, he submitted a request to the brigade commander to reconsider the NJP and his removal from the Drill Sergeant Program.  He essentially argued the following:

	a.  He may have come across as unapologetic toward the Soldier he offended.  He was nervous.  He felt as though he gave a weak presentation compelling him to elaborate in further detail.  While he only intended to be humorous, he said something that was on its face vulgar and unprofessional but turned out to be highly offensive and even inadvertently disrespected a Soldier's deceased mother.

	b.  He took a moment to place himself in the Soldier's shoes.  He does not know what it is like to lose a mother, but he did lose his daughter, a stillborn, last December.  He has not been the same since.  Despite that his words were said in jest, he could understand the pain they must have caused.  If someone made a vulgar or sexual remark about his deceased daughter, it would hurt.  It would be even worse if that person was in a position of authority.  He was deeply troubled by what he had done and would live the rest of his life with that knowledge.

	c.  He prays for mercy and another opportunity to prove himself to the chain-of-command and to Soldiers.  He needs this chance for his career to progress and to be able to take care of his son and help his ex-wife.  He pays $1,000.00 in child support and voluntarily gives an additional $600.00 for spousal support.  It is not his discretion on the outcome of his own punishment.  He is by no means guiltless.  He just wishes for mercy to be granted and pleads for a reversal of the reduction in rank and reinstatement into the Drill Sergeant Program.

13.  His legal counsel wrote a third memorandum requesting that the Commanding General, Fort Jackson, SC permit him to remain in the Drill Sergeant Program and that the NJP-imposed reduction be reconsidered.  Counsel based his request on the applicant's understanding that what he did was wrong, why it was wrong, and that he would not make a mistake of this type or magnitude again.

14.  On 24 October 2012, the applicant wrote a memorandum to the Commanding General, Fort Jackson, SC requesting consideration to remain a drill sergeant.  He indicated that he has wanted to be a drill sergeant since he was a private in basic training.  Two years earlier that dream became a reality and he was very proud.  He believes he was a good drill sergeant.  He went to work early, worked hard all day and left late.  He knew his stuff and was an overall good leader.  However, he admits what he said was unbecoming of a drill sergeant and sincerely apologized for his insensitive and offensive remarks.  He understands that these remarks will forever tarnish all the good work he did and understands why that is so.  He promised, if given another chance, that he would not let anything like this happen again.  He would correct himself and find ways to ensure other drill sergeants learned from his mistakes.  He would do everything in his power to make sure that no other drill sergeant goes through what he has been through, or that any other IET Soldier had to go through what his IET Soldier endured.  Further, he indicated that his removal from the SFC/E-7 promotion list was a lesson that struck home.  He will never forget the impact of his hurtful, mindless remarks.  However, being reduced to SGT/E-5 will destroy his career and he will never be able to recover.  The Army will lose a good Soldier and his family will lose its primary means of support.  He asked that his reduction in rank be suspended.

15.  A DA Form 4187, dated 25 October 2012, reassigned him to the 193rd Infantry Brigade, Fort Jackson, SC, effective 26 October 2012.

16.  In a memorandum, dated 1 November 2012, the Commanding General, Fort Jackson, SC, stated that the applicant's appeal involving his removal from the Drill Sergeant Program had been carefully reviewed.  The commander weighed the merits of his appeal against the established criteria for the Drill Sergeant Program and disapproved the request.

17.  DA Forms 4126, dated 20 and 21 November 2012, show he elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf concerning his bar to reenlistment.  The bar certificate was approved on 21 November 2012 by the Commander, 193rd Infantry Brigade.

18.  On 9 January 2013, he signed an NCOER for the evaluation period ending on 24 September 2012.  This relief for cause NCOER shows:

	a.  Part IIIf (Counseling Dates):

		Initial:  28 November 2011
		Later:  16 February 2012
		Later:  16 May 2012
		Later:  4 August 2012

	b.  Part IVa (Army Values/Attributes/Skills/Actions), a "NO" rating in the values of Loyalty, Duty, Respect/EO/EEO, Selfless Service, Honor, and Integrity.  He received a "YES" rating for the Army value of Personal Courage.  Bullets indicate he was removed from the Drill Sergeant Program for failing to follow orders; he was frequently unwilling to cooperate in working towards unit goals; and he demonstrated a serious lack of integrity and poor judgment.
	
	c.  Part IVb (Values/NCO Responsibilities), the applicant was rated excellent in competence, success in training, needs some improvement in physical fitness and military bearing and in responsibility and accountability, and needs much improvement in leadership.

	d.  Part V (Overall Performance and Potential), he was marginal for promotion and positions of higher responsibility.  The senior rater indicated he was fair in overall performance and potential.  The senior rater comments do not promote him, do not send him to NCO professional development training, and he lacks maturity and judgment and he displayed a disregard for policies and orders.

19.  Standard Forms 600, as provided by the applicant, dated 1 and 3 March 2013, indicate he was referred for a medical evaluation for depression.

	a.  He made a subjective statement to the behavioral health consultant, essentially stating that he had finally come to the realization there was something wrong with him and that he needed help.

	b.  He stated he felt moody, irritable, hostile, and negative even before going "on the trail."  These feelings worsened the longer he was a drill sergeant.  He was never encouraged to get help.  He was to simply "suck it up."  He admitted to being relieved as a drill sergeant for allegedly verbally abusing a trainee, which he denied.  He was on the E-7 promotion list.  He was not only removed from the program; he was also reduced to the pay grade of E-5.

	c.  He had filed for divorce, saying that he had changed.  He had three combat deployments to Iraq in which he experienced numerous firefights, saw dead bodies, lost a Soldier and a dear friend, and experienced numerous mortar attacks.

	d.  He had occasional nightmares in which others were trying to kill him and he awakened startled and perspiring.  He also reported an increased startle response, hyper-vigilance, and intrusive recollections of critical incidents.

	e.  He mumbled throughout the session and rarely maintained eye contact.  He reported sleeping 4 to 5 hours per night with diminished energy during the day.  He also exhibited psychomotor retardation.  He stated that he rarely left his home, but did find some enjoyment and occasional reading and listening to music.

	f.  He reported having reoccurring, severe headaches and requested some medication to alleviate them and help him sleep.  He stated he had appealed his NJP all the way to the post commander and he was now preparing an appeal to the Department of the Army with the assistance of a civilian attorney.

	g.  He was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with disturbance of emotions and conduct and with chronic PTSD.  He was released without limitations.
	h.  On 3 March 2013, he returned to the medical clinic and complained that he was experiencing a mild headache.  He admitted to feeling a loss of interest and that he had been depressed several days.  He denied having any thoughts of suicide or homicide.

20.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) provides that the ABCMR is not an investigative body and places the burden of proving an error and/or injustice on the applicant.

21.  Army Regulation 27-10 (Military Justice) prescribes the policies and procedures pertaining to the administration of military justice.

	a.  This states that NJP is appropriate in all cases involving minor offenses in which non-punitive measures are considered inadequate or inappropriate.  It is a tool available to commanders to correct, educate and reform offenders whom the commander determines cannot benefit from less stringent measures; to preserve a member's record of service from unnecessary stigma by record of court-martial conviction; and to further military efficiency by disposing of minor offenses in a manner requiring fewer resources than trial by court-martial.  The imposing commander is not bound by the formal rules of evidence and may consider any matter, including un-sworn statements the commander reasonably believed to be relevant to the case.  Furthermore, whether to impose punishment and the nature of the punishment are the sole decisions of the imposing commander.

	b.  This regulation states that the decision to file the NJP in the performance or restricted section of the official military personnel file will be determined by the imposing commander at the time punishment is imposed.  The filing decision of the imposing commander is final and will be so indicated on the NJP.

	c.  This regulation provides for the setting aside of the punishment imposed by NJP and restoration of rights, property and privileges.  This is an action whereby the punishment or any part or amount, whether executed or unexecuted, is set aside and any rights, privileges or property affected by the portion of the punishment set aside are restored.  NJP is wholly set aside when the commander who imposed the punishment, a successor-in-command or a superior authority sets aside all punishment imposed upon an individual.  The basis for any set aside action is a determination that, under all the circumstances of the case, the punishment has resulted in a clear injustice.  Clear injustice means that there exists an un-waivered legal or factual error which clearly and affirmatively injured the substantial rights of the Soldier.  An example of clear injustice would be the discovery of new evidence unquestionably exculpating the Soldier.  Clear injustice does not include the fact that the Soldier's performance of service has been exemplary subsequent to the punishment or that the punishment may have an adverse effect on the retention or promotion potential of the Soldier.

22.  In support of the arguments offered for this instant reconsideration, counsel submitting the following documents (identified using counsel's numbering system:

	Enclosure 1 – the applicant's October 2006 PDHA records that he reported seeing civilian(s) killed, he never engaged in combat where he discharged his own weapon, and felt he was in great danger. 

	Enclosure 2 – the applicant was seen by a clinical social worker at Moncrief Army Community Hospital on 4 April 2013.  He went at the suggestion of a friend who thought he held "things in for far too long."  Behavioral Health Data Portal scores were reviewed and revealed moderate to high level of general distress, moderate to severe depression and significant PTSD symptoms.  He reported he was at risk of being removed from the drill sergeant program for cursing at a private.  He also stated, "I got into trouble for having a foul mouth and I'm pending removal from the DS Program." 

	Enclosure 3 – reports he had been seen numerous times by mental health professionals.  On 19 March 2014, a mental health worker reported he had, "gained tremendous insight into his issues since beginning treatment.  He has taken full responsibility for his past misconduct…" 
	
	Enclosure 4 – Dr. Jeannie Monnier's 16 June 2014 letter to the Board observed, "…Unfortunately those with trauma exposure and untreated PTSD are likely to experience numerous difficulties related to their state of psychological distress…At times impulsive behavior can be an unhealthy coping strategy to reduce feelings of distress or to distract from feelings of distress…As suggested by the reviewed research literature, it appears likely that (the applicant's) trauma exposure while deployed and his untreated PTSD reduced his ability to control impulsive thoughts and behaviors, thus resulting in episodes of misconduct."

	Enclosure 6 – the author observed,  "We examined MEDLINE and PsycINFO data bases for literature on combat-related PTSD…Even when there is consistency… the conclusions drawn are often different and data are available to support almost any position…"

	Enclosures 7 through 29 (named above) are essentially background/resource items.


23.  The Table of Maximum Punishments in the Manual for Courts-Martial shows that a dishonorable discharge, 2 years or more confinement, and total forfeitures are authorized for willful disobedience of a lawful order of a commissioned officer and violation of a lawful general regulation and that a bad conduct discharge, 6 months confinement and total forfeitures is authorized for failure to obey any order and for using indecent language.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends his military records should be corrected by voiding the NJP and the associated actions and restoring his name on the SFC/E-7 promotion list.

2.  The available evidence clearly shows he was counseled by his battalion commander in June 2012 for referring, in a demeaning manner, to Soldiers as "fat boy" and "cheeseburger."  He was also counseled for making Soldiers tap their heads against a wall locker as part of corrective training.  Even though he was clearly told these actions would not be tolerated, and he was given a letter of concern by his battalion commander, he had to be counseled again in July 2012 for cursing at his Soldiers while they were in formation.  He was again told that this behavior would not be tolerated and that it could result in UCMJ action.  

3.  He claims to have accepted full responsibility for his actions but has raised every conceivable excuse, from he didn't direct his obscene remarks at any specific trainee or her mother, to the offense did not warrant the punishment.  Now, he contends PTSD made him do it.

4.  Dr. Monnier opines, "it appears likely that (the applicant's) trauma exposure while deployed and his untreated PTSD reduced his ability to control impulsive thoughts and behaviors thus resulting in episodes of misconduct…"

5.  Having difficulty controlling one's behavior is a recognized symptom of PTSD and that he has been diagnosed with PTSD is clear enough.  However, there is no available evidence or assertion that those with PTSD are incapable of learning.  The applicant apparently learned nothing from being counseled verbally and in writing about belittling and abusing trainees, even after being warned by his battalion commander that such behavior would not be tolerated.  Having failed to learn from those less stringent measures, he was advised that he was being considered for NJP.

6.  It is noted that he didn't impulsively waive consulting with counsel or impulsively demand trial by court-martial at which he undoubtedly faced dozens of charges and the possibility of a dishonorable discharge. 
7.  Once the NJP occurred, higher levels of the chain of command became aware of his behavior and questions as to his fitness to be a drill sergeant and a senior NCO had to be answered.  The loss of drill sergeant status naturally followed.   

8.  As a drill sergeant he was in a position of special trust and confidence, which he violated after being repeatedly counseled that such behavior would not be tolerated.  The fact that PTSD may have lowered his inhibitions toward impetuous behavior fails to sufficiently mitigate his egregious misconduct.

9.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20130006083, dated 1 August 2013.



      _______ _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)                                         AR20140013344



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140013344



16


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1