IN THE CASE OF:. 

		BOARD DATE: 4 August 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140020325 


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, his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and it has a great impact on his quality of life.

3.  The applicant provides copies of:

   a.  the statement he submitted on his own behalf in conjunction with his discharge; 
   
   b.  a 1 September 2006 letter from a civilian licensed psychologist showing the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD; and
   
   c.  a 2 March 2013 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) letter, showing he has a VA combined rating of 30% for unknown conditions.

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 2 March 1990.  He held military occupational specialty 74C (Tactical Telecommunications Center Operator).  

3.  His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II) shows he served in Korea from 14 May 1988 to 14 May 1989.  He was awarded the Overseas Service Ribbon, Army Service Ribbon, Driver and Mechanic Badge, Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award), and the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.  The highest grade he attained was specialist four/E-4.

4.  His record shows he received nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on 6 April 1990 for striking another Soldier with his fist.

5.  A 21 March 1991 memorandum, subject:  Rehabilitation Failure shows the applicant enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) on 15 January 1991.  He was referred after being charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI) in November 1990.  He was given an order to abstain from alcohol use by his first sergeant upon his enrollment until completion of the program.  On 15 March 1991 he missed formation and when he was found in his room he smelled of alcohol.  A blood alcohol test showed his blood alcohol level was .04.  His progress in treatment was deemed to be unsatisfactory. 

6.  The applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate the applicant's separation as a rehabilitation failure.  The commander indicated that the applicant had been enrolled in the ADAPCP for alcohol abuse and he had refused to participate in, cooperate in, and successfully complete a program.  There was a lack of potential to continue Army service and rehabilitation efforts were deemed no longer practical.  The applicant had been counseled on numerous occasions, and he had shown no improvement in his conduct.  The commander recommended a general discharge.

7.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander's notification.  He consulted with counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation for rehabilitation failure, the type of discharge he could receive and its effect on further enlistment or reenlistment, the possible effects of this discharge, and of the procedures/rights that were available to him.  He indicated he understood that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions was issued to him.  He submitted a statement on his own behalf in which he states:

	a.   He did not complete the ADAPCP Program because of the stress he went through when he got the DWI charge.  On 15 March 1991, he was found in his room asleep.  This was because he had received bad news from his home about people that were just like family to him, but were not his family.  They had been killed by a drunk driver.

	b.  After an incident at the Noncommissioned Officer's Club he was referred to the ADAPCP Program because a military policeman smelled alcohol, but he was never given an blood test.  For all they know he could have just had a drink.  He doesn’t understand how that incident could be considered an alcohol-related incident.

	c.  If his treatment progress was so unsatisfactory why didn't someone in the chain of command consider that the program wasn't working for him and he needed to go to Track III?

	d.  He missed some of the ADAPCAP meetings because he became ill after working on details from the Command Sergeant Major (CSM).

	e.  He didn't feel the ADAPCP was the right thing for him, and he doesn't understand how putting out a Soldier with a drinking problem with a general discharge is good for the Army or the Soldier. 

8.  The separation authority approved the applicant's discharge and directed the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  On 26 July 1991, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 9.  He had completed 1 years, 4 months, and 25 days of active service.

9.  In support of his request he provided:

	a.  a copy of the statement he submitted in conjunction with his discharge; and  

	b.  a 1 September 2006 letter from a licensed psychologist showing he was diagnosed with PTSD.  The psychologist provides no information relating the PTSD diagnosis to the applicant's active duty service.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 9 contains the authority and outlines the procedures for discharging Soldiers because of alcohol or other drug abuse.  A member who has been referred to ADAPCP for alcohol/drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical.  Initiation of separation proceedings is required for Soldiers designated as alcohol/drug rehabilitation failures (emphasis added).  The service of Soldiers discharged under this chapter will be characterized as honorable or general under honorable conditions unless the Soldier is in an entry-level status and an uncharacterized description of service is required.  

11.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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.

12.  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." 

13.  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.

14.  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. 

15.  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 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.  

16.  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 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.

17.  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?

18.  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.  There is no evidence to support the applicant's assertion that PTSD played a role in his conduct that resulted in his discharge.

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant had an alcohol abuse problem.  He was provided the opportunity to overcome his problem through counseling and enrollment in the ADAPCP; however, he showed poor rehabilitation potential in that he was involved in an alcohol-related incident.  He was therefore declared an ADAPCP rehabilitation failure and accordingly his immediate commander initiated separation action against him.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.

3.  Based on his ADAPCP rehabilitation failure his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, an honorable discharge is not warranted.

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)                                         AR20100012492



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140020325



9


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1