BOARD DATE:	  24 February 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140016956 


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 for an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge, dated 25 January 1972.

2.  The applicant states:

* there were many stressors that created his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and that is why he requested a discharge
* he previously completed 10 months of honorable service and received an honorable discharge before he reenlisted
* his service from September 1968 to January 1972 was a direct result of his PTSD and its ending was also the same
* this disability manifested itself during his military service and led to his behaviors and conduct

3.  The applicant provides:

* Self-authored chronology of his life
* Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests for Veterans Claiming PTSD
* Letter of denial from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
* Statement in Support of Claim for Service-Connection for PTSD Secondary to Personal Assault
* VA Statement in Support of Claim 
* Internet articles about PTSD

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 AR20110019055, dated 3 May 2012.

2.  The applicant does not meet the criteria for a request for reconsideration because his request was not received within 1 year of the Board's original decision.  However, in view of the Secretary of Defense's Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming PTSD, his request warrants consideration by the Board, as an exception to policy.

3.  The applicant's records show he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 9 September 1968 and he held military occupational specialty (MOS) 25J (Operations Center Repairer). 

4.  He was honorably discharged on 1 July 1969 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he completed 9 months and 24 days of active service and he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal. 

5.  He reenlisted in the RA on 2 July 1969.  He was assigned to 6th Battalion, 71st Artillery, Fort Bliss, TX.  While there, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on/for: 

* 26 September 1969, leaving his post as a sentinel at guard before being properly relieved
* 1 December 1969, being disrespectful in language towards a higher ranking Soldier; his punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2
* 12 December 1969, twice driving a motor vehicle without proper registration and disobeying a lawful order to register his vehicle 

6.  On 11 June 1970, at Fort Bliss, TX, he was convicted by a special court-martial of two specifications of failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, one specification of absenting himself from his unit, two specifications of disobeying a lawful order, one specification of being disrespectful in language toward a superior noncommissioned officer, one specification of being disrespectful in language toward a commissioned officer, and one specification of breaking restriction.   The court sentenced him to a forfeiture of pay, confinement at hard labor for 5 months, and a reduction to E-1. The convening authority approved his sentence on 20 July 1970. 

7.  On 10 November 1971, court-martial charges were preferred against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 23 February to 4 June 1971 and from 15 July to 10 November 1971.  

8.  On 2 December 1971, the applicant consulted with legal counsel who advised him of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct discharge or a dishonorable discharge, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of a request for discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.  Following consultation with legal counsel, he requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court-martial.   In his request for discharge, the applicant acknowledged:

* he was making this request on his own free will and he had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever
* he understood that if the discharge request was approved he could be discharged UOTHC and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate
* he acknowledged he understood that he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws
* he acknowledged he understood he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life
* he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf

9.  His senior commander recommended approval with the issuance of a UOTHC discharge. 

10.  On an unknown date, the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation         635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court-martial and directed the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade, if applicable, and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 25 January 1972. 

11.  The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by a court-martial with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He completed 1 year, 11 months, and 18 days of active service this period with lost time from 23 February to 4 June 1971 and from 15 July to 10 November 1971. 

12.  There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for a review of this discharge processing within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 

13.  On 19 April 1974, he again enlisted in the RA.  He was assigned to Fort Gordon, GA.  While there, he accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ on/for: 

* 23 April 1974, disobeying a lawful order 
* 1 August 1974, disobeying a lawful order

14.  On 28 August 1974, the applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate action to eliminate him from the Army under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 due to unsuitability.  The immediate commander requested a waiver of any further requirements for counseling or rehabilitative transfer because all attempts at counseling and rehabilitating the applicant had failed.  

15.  On 28 August 1974, the applicant acknowledged he had been notified of the pending separation action against him and he had been advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him for unsuitability.  He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers and a personal appearance before a board of officers.  He further elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf.  He acknowledged that:

* he understood he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions were issued to him
* he understood that in the event of the issuance of an undesirable discharge, he might be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws and he may encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life

16.  On 28 August 1974, the immediate commander initiated separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 due to unsuitability. Specifically, the immediate commander cited the applicant's apathy and lack of sufficient interest for continued military service. 
17.  On 10 September 1974, the intermediate commander recommended approval of the discharge action.  He stated the applicant was extremely apathetic about further military service.  He had established a trend of absenteeism which could not be tolerated.  His performance was substandard and counseling had failed.  

18.  On 16 September 1974, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation by reason of unsuitability and ordered the applicant be discharged and issued an under honorable conditions (general) characterization of service.  The applicant was discharged accordingly on 20 September 1974. 

19.  His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.  He completed 5 months and 2 days of creditable active military service this period. 

20.  There is no indication he applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of this discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitation.

21.  On 3 May 2012, the ABCMR considered his case but found his 1972 separation proper and equitable.  As such, the Board denied his request. 

22.  He provides multiple letters to the VA claiming service-connection for PTSD. The VA responded, on multiple occasions advising him that service-connection for PTSD requires medical evidence to establish a diagnosis of this condition that conforms to the standards.  He had none.  There was no evidence associating the diagnosis of PTSD with his military service. 

23.   Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 

	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.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, an undesirable discharge is normally considered appropriate.

	b.  Chapter 13, in effect at the time, set forth the policy and prescribed procedures for discharging enlisted personnel for unsuitability.  Action was to be taken to discharge an individual for unsuitability when, in the commander's opinion, it was clearly established that:  the individual was unlikely to develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier or the individual's psychiatric or physical condition was such as to not warrant discharge for disability.  Unsuitability included inaptitude, character and behavior disorders, disorders of intelligence and transient personality disorders due to acute or special stress, apathy, defective attitude, and inability to expend effort constructively, enuresis, chronic alcoholism, and homosexuality.  Evaluation by a medical officer was required and when psychiatric indications are involved, the medical officer must be a psychiatrist, if one was available.  A general under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge was considered appropriate.

	c.  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

	d.  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.

24.  PTSD can occur after someone goes through a traumatic event like combat, assault, or disaster.  Military Sexual Trauma and Stalking are stressors that could lead to PTSD.  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." 

25.  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.

26.  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) 

* Direct exposure 
* Witnessing, in person
* 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
* 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) 

* Recurrent, involuntary, and intrusive memories 
* Traumatic nightmares 
* Dissociative reactions (e.g., flashbacks) which may occur on a continuum from brief episodes to complete loss of consciousness 
* Intense or prolonged distress after exposure to traumatic reminders 
* 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)

* Trauma-related thoughts or feelings
* 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)

* Inability to recall key features of the traumatic event (usually dissociative amnesia; not due to head injury, alcohol, or drugs)
* Persistent (and often distorted) negative beliefs and expectations about oneself or the world (e.g., "I am bad," "The world is completely dangerous")
* Persistent distorted blame of self or others for causing the traumatic event or for resulting consequences
* Persistent negative trauma-related emotions (e.g., fear, horror, anger, guilt, or shame)
* Markedly diminished interest in (pre-traumatic) significant activities
* Feeling alienated from others (e.g., detachment or estrangement)
* 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, substance use, or other illness. 

27.  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.  

28.  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.

29.  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?

30.  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 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 causeal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant served on active duty from 2 July 1969 to 25 January 1972.  During this period: 

	a.  He was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.  Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He 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.  Further, his discharge accurately reflects his record of service.

	b.  There is no evidence that shows the applicant suffered from any medical issues during the referenced period.  There is no evidence of record and none was provided with this application to show he suffered an injury or was diagnosed with a physical or a mental illness, including PTSD, or any other medical condition that rendered him unable to reasonably perform the duties required of his former grade or military specialty or caused him to go AWOL. 

	c.  He was not discharged because of any medical condition.  He was discharged because he chose to go AWOL and when he was returned to military control he chose to be discharged.  His service was interrupted by his AWOL and request for voluntary discharge. 

	d.  The available evidence clearly shows he elected to go AWOL.  Additionally, upon preferring court-martial charges against him, he exercised his right to consult with counsel.  His options were to face the court-martial that could have adjudged a dishonorable or a bad conduct discharge or submit a voluntary request for discharge.  He voluntarily chose the discharge.  Those were choices that he made.  

2.  Based on his record of indiscipline, the applicant's service during the period 2 July 1969 through 25 January 1972 clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct also renders his service unsatisfactory.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting him an honorable or a general 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20110019055, dated 3 May 2012.



      _______ _   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)                                         AR20140016956



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140016956



11


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1