BOARD DATE:	  9 June 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150000607 


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 undesirable discharge to honorable.

2.  The applicant states:

* he was stabbed five times on 17 May 1982
* he was involved in a car accident on his way to work on 14 April 1984 and one of his children was killed
* he started receiving benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in July 2014 due to the stabbings
* he was not offered any type of counseling after losing one of his children in that accident
* he received a discharge under other than honorable conditions instead
* he was an honorable Soldier and he loved serving his country, but the horrible event changed his life
* his discharge was mishandled because he was a bereaved parent at the time

3.  The applicant provides:

* Alabama Uniform Traffic Accident Report
* State of Alabama Unified Judicial System, Administration Office of Court, Case Action Summary – Criminal
* Alabama Uniform Arrest Report
* Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Form 21-0960P-3 (Review of PTSD Disability Benefits Questionnaire)

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 AR20090019118 on 4 May 2010.

2.  The applicant provided new arguments and evidence of his PTSD not previously considered by the Board that warrant consideration at this time.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 July 1979.

4.  State of Alabama Circuit Criminal Court of Dale County documents show the applicant was a victim of multiple stab wounds in 1982.

5.  His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II) shows he was promoted or reduced in rank/grade as follows:

* 1 June 1981 – specialist four (SP4)/E-4
* 5 March 1983 – sergeant/E-5
* 12 April 1983 – SP4/E-4

6.  He accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, as follows:

* 20 June 1984 – for failing to go at the time prescribed  to his appointed place of duty
* 15 August 1984 – for assaulting a sergeant by striking him with a closed fist and wrongfully communicating a threat to kill him
* 24 October 1984 – for leaving his appointed place of duty without authority, being drunk and disorderly, using disrespectful language to a superior noncommissioned officers, and disobeying an order

7.  He received a letter of reprimand for assaulting and communicating a threat to another Soldier on 18 March 1984.

8.  An Alabama Uniform Traffic Accident Report shows he was involved in a car accident on 15 April 1984 that resulted in the death of one individual.

9.  Records show the applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) from 10 September 1984 through 18 October 1984.

10.  A DA Form 4384-R (Commander's Report of Inquiry/Unauthorized Absence), undated, referencing his unauthorized absence for the aforementioned period beginning 10 September 1984 shows the applicant indicated to his company commander that he would not return and he took his family from quarters late at night.  His commander indicated:

* possible contributing factors causing him to be AWOL –

* marital strife
* indebtedness
* trouble with superiors

* the applicant suffered from mental instability and he had been treated for depression

11.  On 24 October 1984, charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL for the period 10 September 1984 through 18 October 1984.

12.  A record of an interview between the applicant and his commander, dated 24 October 1984, states the applicant:

* was AWOL for 38 days because he felt mistreated by the military due to denial of a weekend pass
* needed to take care of his wife after her accident and release from the hospital
* surrendered to military authorities and desired a discharge from the Army

13.  On 24 October 1984, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and 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.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offense charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and that he might be ineligible for many or all Army benefits administered by the VA if he were issued a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  He elected not to submit statements in his own behalf.

14.  On 18 December 1985, the separation authority approved the applicant's request and directed characterization of his service as under other than honorable conditions and his reduction to private/E-1.

15.  On 15 January 1985, he was discharged accordingly.  He completed 5 years, 4 months, and 11 days of creditable active service and he accrued 83 days of lost time due to AWOL or confinement.+

16.  On 15 July 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.

17.  His VA Form 21-0960P-3, dated 4 March 2015, shows a diagnosis of PTSD by a psychiatrist from the VA Medical Center, Tuskegee, AL, who indicated the applicant experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of himself or others.  The traumatic event was persistently re-experienced by recurrent and distressing recollections of the event, including images, thoughts, or perceptions.  The applicant's PTSD symptoms cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

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

	a.  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.

	b.  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.

	c.  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.

19.  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 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 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."

20.  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.

21.  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.

22.  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.

23.  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.

24.  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?

25.  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.

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

	a.  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.

	b.  Chapter 10 (Discharge in Lieu of Court-Martial) states a member who was charged with an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request could have been submitted at any time after charges had been preferred and must have included the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally issued to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was the victim of multiple stab wounds and was involved in a vehicle accident which killed his child within a 2-year period.  He was subsequently AWOL resulting in court-martial charges.

2.  He voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He was discharged accordingly effective 15 January 1985.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering the available facts at the time.

3.  He was recently diagnosed as having PTSD by a VA Medical Center psychiatrist who indicated the applicant experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of himself or others.  The traumatic event was persistently re-experienced by recurrent and distressing recollections of the event his PTSD symptoms caused clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

4.  At the time of his 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.

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

6.  Although he had a history of misconduct prior to the vehicular accident, it is reasonable to conclude that his PTSD was a causative factor in the AWOL that ultimately led to his discharge.  After carefully weighing that fact against the severity of his misconduct, there is sufficient mitigating evidence to warrant upgrading the character of his service to general under honorable conditions and restoring his rank/grade to SP4/E-4 with an effective date of 12 April 1983.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

__X______  __X______  __X__  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION



BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant amendment of the ABCMR's decision in Docket Number AR20090019118, dated 4 May 2010.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing his DD Form 214 to show his character of service as under honorable conditions (general) and his rank/grade as SP4/E-4 with an effective date of 12 April 1983.

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 undesirable discharge to fully 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)                                         AR20150000607



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150000607



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1