BOARD DATE:    12 February 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140019213 


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, in effect, upgrade of his under other honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states his discharge should be upgraded because of the post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) he suffered from an incident of sexual trauma that occurred while he was on active duty. 

	a.  In November 1967, a sergeant escorted him to a boiler room, took off his uniform shirt and "jumped on" the applicant.  In December 1967, he was sent home for Christmas and after Christmas he went to Fort Campbell for a partial pay.  He was unable to get any pay and was told to go home until he was notified.

	b.  In January 1968, he went to the Post Exchange and ended up being caught in a snow storm.  A sergeant major gave him a ride and sexually assaulted him.  He returned to his unit and told his captain what had happened.  Nothing was done to find the sergeant major but he began to be teased by the leaders in his platoon.  He tried to commit suicide, was rushed to the hospital and had his stomach pumped.

	c.  He was reassigned from Fort Dix, New Jersey, to Fort Gordon, Georgia.  He began to go absent without leave (AWOL) because he was being teased about the sexual assault incident.  He ended up going home due to threats on his life.  He was put in the stockade at Fort Campbell, Kentucky.

	d.  He informed personnel in the stockade of what happened to him and he was put "in the hole" where he stayed with the bugs and rats for a month and a half.  He was told the only way out was to sign some papers for an undesirable discharge.  

	e.  He was denied medical help while in the service and did not receive any help until 14 June 1977 when he began to get help from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) office in Roanoke, Virginia.  He lost two marriages due to his illness and many jobs.

3.  The applicant provides:

* VA Statement in Support of Claim, dated 18 March 2006
* a copy of his Department of Defense Identification and Privilege Card
* VA Progress Notes, dated 4 February 2009

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, and 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 12 October 1967.  He held military occupational specialty (MOS) 57A (Duty Solider).

3.  His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows in:

	a.  item 33 (Appointments and Reductions), that the highest rank he achieved was private two/E-2;

	b.  item 41 (Awards and Decorations) the National Defense Service Medal and the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar; and

	c.  item 44 (Time Lost) ten entries showing approximately 306 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.
4.  On 29 March 1969, charges were preferred against him under the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being AWOL from 1 October 1968 to 23 January 1969.

5.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge and the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, and the procedures and rights that were available to him.  Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel and without coercion, he voluntarily 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.

6.  In this request for discharge he acknowledged he understood if his discharge request was approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA, and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf along with his request.

7.  His company commander recommended approval of the separation with issuance of an undesirable discharge.  

8.  On 8 April 1969, the separation authority approved his request for voluntary discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court-martial, with an undesirable discharge.

9.  On 14 April 1969, the applicant was discharged Under Other than Honorable Conditions.  He had completed 7 months and 27 days of active duty service.  Time lost is shown as 309 days.  

10.  His discharge was upgraded to "under honorable conditions" under the Department of Defense Discharge Review Program (Special) (SDRP) on 14 June 1977.

11.  A Military Review Boards Agency letter, dated 29 August 1978, informed the applicant that the ADRB did not affirm his SDRP discharge.

12.  On 4 April 1977 the Department of Defense (DOD) directed the Services to
review all less than fully honorable administrative discharges issued between 
4 August 1964 and 28 March 1973.  This program, known as the DOD
Discharge Review Program (Special) (SDRP) required, in the absence of
compelling reasons to the contrary, that a discharge upgrade to either
honorable or general be issued in the case of any individual who had either
completed a normal tour of duty in Southeast Asia, been wounded in action,
been awarded a military decoration other than a service medal, had received
an honorable discharge from a previous period of service, or had a record of
satisfactory military service of 24 months prior to discharge.  Consideration of other factors, including possible personal problems which may have contributed to the acts which led to the discharge, and a record of good citizenship since the time of discharge, would also be considered upon application by the individual.

13.  In October 1978, Public Law 95-126 was enacted.  This legislation denied
VA benefits to any former service member who had been AWOL for more than 180 consecutive days, or who had been classified as a deserter or a conscientious objector.  The DOD was required to establish historically consistent, uniform standards for discharge reviews.  Reconsideration using these uniform standards was required for all discharges previously upgraded under the SDRP and certain other programs were required.  Individuals whose SDRP upgrades were not affirmed upon review under these historically consistent uniform standards were not entitled to VA benefits, unless they had been entitled to such benefits before their SDRP review.

14.  He provides VA Progress Notes, dated 4 February 2009, from Dr S--------
V-------, a Psychiatrist who states that the applicant suffers from severe PTSD related to an incident of sexual trauma which occurred while he was in the military.  He reportedly went AWOL due to his severe anxiety and depression following the trauma.  The Doctor states, "It is my clinical opinion that Mr H----'s symptoms are severe enough to affect his social and occupational functioning.  I also believe he is totally disabled because of his illness, which continues to affect him psychologically and continues to interfere with his ability to be gainfully employed."

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

	a.  Chapter 10 of the version in effect at the time provided that a Soldier whose conduct rendered him triable by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge could request a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of a trial.  The regulation required that there have been no element of coercion involved in the submission of such a request and that the applicant was provided an opportunity to consult with counsel.  The Soldier was required to sign the request indicating he understood he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions, the adverse nature of such a discharge, and the possible consequences thereof.  The regulation required that the request be forwarded through channels to the general court-martial convening authority.  An undesirable discharge certificate would normally be furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service. 

	b.  Paragraph 3-7a states 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.

	c.  Paragraph 3-7b states 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.  

16.  PTSD can occur after someone goes through a traumatic event like combat, assault, or disaster.  The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and it provides standard criteria and common language for the classification of mental disorders.  In 1980, the APA added PTSD to the third edition of its DSM-III nosologic classification scheme.  Although controversial when first introduced, the PTSD diagnosis has filled an important gap in psychiatric theory and practice.
From an historical perspective, the significant change ushered in by the PTSD concept was the stipulation that the etiological agent was outside the individual (i.e., a traumatic event) rather than an inherent individual weakness (i.e., a traumatic neurosis).  The key to understanding the scientific basis and clinical expression of PTSD is the concept of "trauma." 

17.  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.

18.  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. 

19.  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 (UOTHC) may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge.  It is also acknowledged that in some cases this undiagnosed condition of PTSD may have been a mitigating factor in the Soldier's misconduct which served as a catalyst for their discharge.  Research has also shown that misconduct stemming from PTSD is typically based upon a spur of the moment decision resulting from temporary lapse in judgment; therefore, PTSD is not a likely cause for either premeditated misconduct or misconduct that continues for an extended period of time.  

20.  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.

21.  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?

22.  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 causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations in effect at the time.  The characterization of the applicant's discharge was commensurate with the reason for discharge and overall record of military service in accordance with the governing regulations in effect at the time.

2.  At the time of the applicant's discharge, PTSD was largely unrecognized by the medical community and DoD.  However, both the medical community and DoD now have a more thorough understanding of PTSD and its potential to serve as a causative factor in a Soldier's misconduct when the condition is not diagnosed and treated in a timely fashion.

3.  Soldiers who suffered from PTSD and were separated solely for misconduct subsequent to a traumatic event warrant careful consideration for the possible recharacterization of their overall service.

4.  A review of the applicant's record and the evidence that he provided shows that he experienced sexual trauma approximately three months after he enlisted. This trauma resulted in his continued periods of AWOL because of threats and teasing from other Soldiers.  Although he asked for help none was provided.  He ended up in the stockade and accepted an undesirable discharge. 

5.  It is concluded that the PTSD conditions were a causative factor in the misconduct that led to the discharge.  After carefully weighing that fact against the severity of the applicant's misconduct, there is sufficient mitigating evidence to warrant affirming the general discharge granted under the SDRP.  However, in weighing the same above factors, the applicant's overall service does not rise to a fully honorable characterization of service.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

___x_____  ___x_____  ___x _  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by affirming the SDRP general discharge for the period ending 14 April 1969. 

2.  The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to upgrading his discharge to honorable. 



      __________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)                                         AR20140004034



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140019213



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1