IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:  2 July 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140019883 


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 an upgrade of his undesirable discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to honorable.

2.  The applicant states:

* he desires a better discharge
* he has a mental health problem for which he has been in treatment since 1982 at various facilities, e.g., Jackson Hospital, Louisiana State Hospital, and Pinebelt Mental Health Center
* his records are held at the Jackson Hospital and Pinebelt Mental Health Center
* his mental illness is due to the stress of Army training he experienced the short time he was in the service
* he has post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to wartime service

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence.

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 12 November 1970.

3.  Records indicate he completed basic combat training, but he absented himself without leave during advanced individual training (AIT) for which he received nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  He then returned to AIT and absented himself again from on or about 21 July 1971 to on or about 7 September 1971 which resulted in a special court-martial conviction and assignment to the Correctional Training Facility, Fort Riley, Kansas.

4.  Charges were preferred against him on 11 May 1972 for being absent without leave (AWOL) from on or about 5 December 1971 through on or about 6 February 1972.

5.  A DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 15 May 1972, shows the applicant's behavior was normal, he had no significant mental illness, he was mentally responsible, he was able to distinguish right from wrong, he was able to adhere to the right, he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings, and he met the retention standards prescribed in Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3.

6.  On 19 May 1972, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10.  He consulted with 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 a discharge under other than honorable conditions, and the procedures and rights available to him.

7.  On 31 May 1972, he submitted a statement in his own behalf in which he acknowledged he was held in the Personnel Control Facility, Fort Benning, GA, pending trial by special court martial for being AWOL from 5 December 1971 through 6 February 1972.  On 6 February 1972, he was arrested by civil authorities for grand larceny in Gulfport, MS, and served 3 months of a 3-year sentence when he was released to military authorities.  He acknowledged prior periods of AWOL, an inability to adjust to military life, and a desire to be discharged.

8.  On 12 June 1972, the separation authority approved his request for discharge and directed his reduction to private/E-1 and the issuance of an undesirable  discharge under other than honorable conditions.

9.  On 30 June 1972, he was discharged accordingly.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he completed 8 months, and 3 days of total active service with 350 days of lost time due to being AWOL.  It also shows he did not complete AIT; he was not awarded a military occupational specialty; and he did not serve in Vietnam, Indochina, or Korea.

10.  There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for a review of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

11.  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, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

	b.  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.

	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.

12.  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.

13.  The fifth edition of the DSM 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 criterion 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; or

		(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; or

		(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; or

		(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); and

		(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; and

		(6)  sleep disturbance.

	f.  Criterion F – Duration:  Persistence of symptoms (in Criteria B, C, D, and E) for more than 1 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.

14.  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 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 Soldiers' 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 a 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.

15.  On 3 September 2014 in view of the foregoing information, 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 applicants' service.

16.  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?

17.  Although 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 records 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.  BCM/NRs 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.  BCM/NRs 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 request for an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions to honorable was carefully considered; however, the evidence does not support his request.

2.  His records show he did not complete AIT due to multiple periods of AWOL; assignment to the correctional training facility for rehabilitation; and a civil conviction for grand larceny for which he was confined.

3.  He consulted with counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial and the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ.  Subsequent to receiving legal counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

4.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.

5.  Although the applicant claims PTSD resulting from his Army wartime service was a mitigating factor in his actions, there is no evidence in his records and he did not provide any evidence showing he was ever diagnosed with PTSD or PTSD-related symptoms or exposed to a traumatic event during his period of service.

6.  Based on his record of indiscipline, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to 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 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)                                         AR20140019883



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140019883



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1