IN THE CASE OF:	   

		BOARD DATE:	  28 April 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140015039 


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 that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states, in effect:

* he was forced to leave Fort Jackson, SC (in an absent without leave (AWOL) status)
* his former company commander got with his new commander and they were trying to make his life a living hell
* being treated badly by his commanders caused him to make some wrong choices
* he had no problems before all this happened; he really enjoyed serving his country
* he only has his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show he served in the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) in Korea for 11 months and 13 days
* he believes he was suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and implies this contributed to the misconduct which led to his discharge

3.  The applicant provides:

* a self-authored statement
* DD Form 214
* three letters of support

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

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

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 June 1969 at age 18.  After completing initial training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 76P (Stock Control and Accounting Specialist).  The highest rank/grade held was specialist four/E-4.

3.  His records show his first duty assignment was in Korea from on or about 14 November 1969 to 27 December 1970.  He was assigned to two units within the 2nd Infantry Division:

* Headquarters and Headquarters Company and Band, Support Command, with duty as a light truck driver
* Company C, 2nd Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, with duty as a unit armorer

4.  On 27 January 1971, he was assigned to Fort Jackson, SC.  He had no record of indiscipline prior to his assignment to Fort Jackson.  While at Fort Jackson, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on two occasions:

* on 18 February 1971, for one specification of willfully and unlawfully removing a public record (military pay voucher) in December 1970, while in Korea
* on 30 April 1971, for two specifications of failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed

5.  On 7 June 1971, he departed his Fort Jackson unit in an AWOL status, and on 6 July 1971 he was dropped from the rolls as a deserter.  He was apprehended and returned to military control on 1 November 1971.  He was assigned to the U.S. Army Personnel Control Facility at Fort Dix, NJ.
6.  On 2 November 1971, the applicant's commander preferred court-martial charges.

7.  On 3 November 1971, the applicant consulted with counsel and was advised of the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel).  He was further advised of the possible effects of both an honorable and an UOTHC discharge.  He was informed of the procedures and rights available to him.  Subsequent to receiving legal counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  

8.  In his request for discharge he indicated he:

* was making the request of his own free will and had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person 
* understood if the discharge request was approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, and he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA
* understood he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a Veteran under both Federal and State laws
* elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf

9.  On 15 December 1971, the separation authority approved his request for discharge in lieu of court-martial with the issuance of an under other than honorable discharge.  On 10 January 1972, he was discharged accordingly.

10.  His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, with an UOTHC discharge.  This form shows he completed 1 year, 4 months, and 8 days of net active creditable service with 147 days of lost time.  He was awarded or authorized:

* National Defense Service Medal
* Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal

11.  He applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge and the ADRB informed him by letter, on 5 February 1980, that his request for a change in the type and nature of his discharge was denied.

12.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement.

	a.  It essentially states:

* he spent 13 1/2 months in Korea in the DMZ and received combat pay
* after 13 1/2 months of hardship he was stationed at Fort Jackson
* while in Korea, he did not sleep well; a person who fell asleep on the job would wind up dead the next morning
* as a result of his tour in Korea he developed a sleeping disorder
* he went to drill sergeant school and he failed; he fell asleep and missed one class
* he was sent back to his unit and worked as a supply clerk and he was doing well, but his company commander was angry that he had failed
* his company commander started giving him a hard time
* his commander said he would give him an Article 15 for having a button undone so the applicant asked to see the inspector general (IG)
* his commander denied his request and he went to see the IG anyway 
* the IG agreed he should not receive an Article 15, called his unit commander, told the applicant not to worry anymore and he was sent back to his unit
* upon his return, his commander was angrier than before
* because of his commander's actions he requested a transfer to another unit; his transfer was approved

	b.  Additionally, he states:

* after his transfer he worked in the main supply section at Fort Jackson and was doing well until his former commander got with his new commander
* his new commander began to treat him the same way he had been treated by his former commander
* he got very depressed; he made a bad choice and went AWOL hoping to get his head right
* he was picked up in New York and he was taken to Fort Dix, NJ
* he was asked if he wanted to stay in the Army, to which he replied he did, but he did not want to return to Fort Jackson
* he was told he would either have to return to his unit or leave the Army
* he chose to leave the Army thinking he would receive a general discharge under honorable conditions; he received an UOTHC discharge
* he really did not understand why he received this discharge; he feels the only thing he did wrong was leave Fort Jackson without permission
* he was only 19 years old, young and foolish, and made bad choices
* he is very sorry for the choices he made and tried his best to serve his country
* he does not believe he deserves an UOTHC discharge and asks for favorable consideration of his request for an upgrade

13.  The applicant provides three letters of support, all of which state, in effect:

* the writers are all Veterans and are friends of the applicant
* the applicant has a big heart and tries to help his fellow man
* his company commander at Fort Jackson was out of line and should have treated him better
* the applicant had a sleep disorder which caused him to miss one class and fail the drill sergeants school 
* the applicant is now homeless and trying to become a better person
* his life has been very hard since being discharged, but he served his country well during his assignment in Korea at the DMZ
* his UOTHC discharge should be upgraded

14.  Army Regulation 635-200 provides policy and guidance for enlisted separations.

   a.  Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial at any time after the charges have been preferred.  An UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate.

   b.  Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is given when the quality of the Soldier’s service has generally met standards of acceptable conduct and duty performance.  

   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.

15.  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 a historical perspective, the significant change ushered in by the PTSD concept was the stipulation that the etiological agent was outside the individual (i.e., a traumatic event) rather than an inherent individual weakness (i.e., a traumatic neurosis).  The key to understanding the scientific basis and clinical expression of PTSD is the concept of "trauma."

16.  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.

17.  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)

* Irritable or aggressive behavior
* Self-destructive or reckless behavior
* Hypervigilance
* Exaggerated startle response
* Problems in concentration
* 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 or substance.

18.  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 issued an UOTHC discharged 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.

19.  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.

20.  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?

21.  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.  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 under other than honorable conditions.  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 causeal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. Discharges under this chapter are due to a voluntary request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant voluntarily, willingly, and in writing, requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  All requirements of law and regulation were met, and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.

2.  In the applicant's request for the upgrade of his UOTHC discharge, he states he believes he is suffering from PTSD, which he implies contributed to the misconduct leading to his discharge.  However, neither does the available record show, nor has the applicant provided any evidence of a diagnosis made by a behavioral health provider credentialed to be able to affirm a diagnosis of PTSD.  

3.  The applicant points out that he was young and immature at the time of his discharge.  Records show he was 18 years of age at the time of enlistment and nearly 20 years of age at the time of his discharge.  There is no evidence that indicates the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligations.  Additionally, there is no evidence in the available records and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence showing that his acts of indiscipline were the result of his age.

4.  Based on his record of misconduct, the applicant's service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct also renders his service unsatisfactory.  Accordingly, there is insufficient basis upon which to grant the applicant's request for relief.





BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___x____  ___x____  ___x_____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined 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)                                         AR20140015039



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140015039



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1