IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  14 April 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140015434 


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 her previous request that the characterization of service of her deceased husband, a former service member (FSM), be upgraded from an undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. 

2.  The applicant states:

     a.  When her husband fought for our country he also had to save his life as well as the lives of his buddies.  As a result of war he was hit in the forehead by shrapnel.  His leg and arm were also injured.  Her husband passed away in 1996 from a cancer caused by injuries he received in the Korean War.  A serology test was performed on her husband and it showed that he had cardiolipin, which is related to lupus.  It also showed he had issues with blood clotting.  He had contact with mustard gas during his service in the Korean War.  These issues were related to his behavior and thinking.

      b.  He was not like this prior to entering military service.   As a result of war he developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) which affected him in many ways.  He went absent without leave (AWOL) on five occasions.  He was punished by a court-martial and mistreated because of his race.  He had nightmares about being attacked.

      c.  When she applied for widow’s benefits she was denied because there was no proof that her husband had PTSD.  She does not understand why she was denied.  Her husband was buried in a military cemetery with honors.  She was his wife and she should be receiving benefits.  
3.  The applicant provides:

* a self-authored statement
* a map of the Brigadier General William C. Doyle Veterans Memorial Cemetery
* an article on the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center
* an article titled Black Soldiers, White Army 
* two Reports of Medical Examination 

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 Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20130009184, dated 4 February 2014.

2.  The applicant provides new evidence which was not previously reviewed by the ABCMR.  The new evidence warrants consideration by the Board.  

3.  The FSM's records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 October 1951 and he held military occupational specialty 1745 (Light Weapons Infantryman). 

4.  He completed 1 year, 4 months, and 5 days of foreign service and he was awarded or authorized the Purple Heart, Combat Infantryman Badge, Korean Service Medal with one bronze service star, United Nations Service Medal, and National Defense Service Medal. 

5.  His records show he accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice on/for:

* 22 October 1953, disobeying a lawful order
* 7 November 1953, being AWOL
* 12 January 1954, failure to repair
* 14 January 1954, failure to comply with post regulation 
* 16 June 1954, traffic violation
* 23 July 1954, failure to repair

6.  His records also show he was convicted by courts-martial as follows:  

* 16 February 1954, summary court-martial for one specification of being AWOL from 8 to 13 February 1954; he was sentenced to a forfeiture of pay and a reduction in grade
* 21 May 1954, special court-martial for one specification of being AWOL from 9 April to 7 May 1954; he was sentenced to a forfeiture of pay
* 9 June 1954, summary court-martial for twice failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty; he was sentenced to a forfeiture of pay 
* 24 September 1954, special court-martial for one specification of being AWOL from 1 August to 10 September 1954; he was sentenced to a forfeiture of pay and confinement at hard labor

7.  On 14 November 1954, his immediate commander requested a board of officers be convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Enlisted Men - Discharge - Unfitness (Undesirable Habits or Traits of Character)) for the purpose of determining the applicant's fitness for retention.  The immediate commander remarked that the FSM had been a severe disciplinary problem as evidenced by his record.  Accordingly, he was notified to appear before a board of officers to determine whether he should be discharged from the Army prior to the expiration of his term of service.  He acknowledged receipt.

8.  On 15 November 1954, a board of officers convened at Headquarters, 69th Infantry Division, Fort Dix, NJ, for the purpose of determining his fitness for retention.  The board found him unfit for further retention in the military by reason of misconduct as evidenced by his excessive time lost and trial by courts-martial which rendered his retention in the service undesirable, and recommended his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 for unfitness with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

9.  On an unknown date in November 1954, the convening authority approved the board of officers' findings and recommendations and ordered the FSM discharged by reason of unfitness with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 23 November 1954. 

10.  The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 with an undesirable discharge.  This form also shows he completed 2 years, 9 months, and 23 days of creditable active service and he had 118 days of lost time.

11.  There is no available evidence nor does the applicant provide any evidence showing that the FSM suffered from or was diagnosed with PTSD during or subsequent to his military service.

12.  On 3 February 1955, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his petition for an upgrade of his discharge.

13.  Army Regulation 615-368, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel by reason of unfitness.  That regulation provided for the discharge of individuals who had demonstrated their unfitness by giving evidence of habits and traits of character manifested by misconduct.  Unfitness included habits and traits of character manifested by antisocial or amoral trend, chronic alcoholism, criminalism, drug addiction, pathological lying, homosexuality, sexual perversion, or misconduct.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

14.  Army Regulation 615-368 also stated that a board of officers would recommend that the individual either be discharged because of unfitness or unsuitability, or retained in the service.  The regulation stated that discharge, if recommended, would be for unfitness, except that discharge because of unsuitability under Army Regulation 615-369 (Enlisted Personnel - Discharge - Inaptitude or Unsuitability) without referral to another board might be recommended in borderline cases if military circumstances and the character of service rendered by the individual during his current period of service so warranted.  As examples, such circumstances would apply where the cause of unfitness had been minor relative to the length of efficient service or where there had been a definite effort at self control or where an individual had distinguished himself by an act of heroism during his current period of service, which in itself reflected great credit on the individual and the military service.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) governs the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 3-7a, in pertinent part, states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization 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 or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

16.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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.

17.  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."

18.  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.

19.  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.

20.  As a result of the extensive research conducted by the medical community and the relatively recent issuance of revised criteria regarding the causes, diagnosis and treatment of PTSD the Department of Defense (DOD) acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge.  It is also acknowledged that in some cases this undiagnosed condition of PTSD may have been a mitigating factor in the Soldier's misconduct which served as a catalyst for their discharge.  Research has also shown that misconduct stemming from PTSD is typically based upon a spur of the moment decision resulting from temporary lapse in judgment; therefore, PTSD is not a likely cause for either premeditated misconduct or misconduct that continues for an extended period of time.

21.  In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards 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.

22.  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?

23.  Although the DOD acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge, it is 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’s contention that the FSM suffered from PTSD as a result of his service in the Korean War was considered.

2.  However, the available record does not show nor has the applicant provided evidence of a PTSD diagnosis made by a credentialed behavioral health provider able to affirm such a diagnosis.  In the absence of such evidence, PTSD cannot be considered as a mitigating factor with regard to the misconduct that led to his discharge.

3.  His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations at the time with no procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The separation authority appropriately directed issuance of an undesirable discharge based on his overall record during the period under review.  There is neither an error nor an injustice.  Therefore, the FSM is not entitled to 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20130009184, dated 4 February 2014.




      ___________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)                                         AR20140015434



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140015434



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1