BOARD DATE:	  4 August 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150000730 


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 previous request that his general, under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he is providing new arguments that were not previously considered.

3.  The applicant provides a letter from the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), dated 17 December 2014.

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 ABCMR in Docket Number AR20140006027, on 16 December 2014.

2.  As new arguments the applicant states, in effect:

	a.  He was guilty of using marijuana but he was not guilty of being disrespectful toward a noncommissioned officer (NCO).  His first sergeant (1SG) who was African American was angered at his rise in rank over most African Americans.  One evening, the 1SG told him that he wanted him to dress for a job he wanted him to do at physical training (PT) the next morning.  He doesn't remember exactly what the job was, but it was to build something for the 1SG in the rear barracks.  The next morning, he (the applicant) showed up in fatigues and boots and as soon as the 1SG saw that he wasn't dressed for PT the 1SG accused him of being out of order.  The 1SG denied all the things he had told him the night before and called him a liar.  He explained this to his commander and was told to get dressed for PT.  His NCO filed the charges against him and because of his rank the NCO was considered right.

	b.  When he was serving in Germany, his best friend committed suicide.  The next morning, his commander called him into his office and told him what happened.  He was a specialist four (SP4), he was considered a leader and the commander indicated he should have taken better care of his friend.  He was then offered his friend's job which he refused and his depression began.  His anxiety and depression made him want no more of the awful treatment.  Another Soldier was being discharged for writing bad checks and “Satan” put it into his head to do the same thing so he could be released from active duty.

	c.  He is sorry for the decisions he made and asks the Army to forgive him.  He has been receiving treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs for the last 12 years and will never get over the way his commander accused him of letting his friend commit suicide.  He knows the Army has rules and regulations but maybe the post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) he has been put through for over 29 years can be understood.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 July 1983.  He was promoted to the rank of SP4 on 1 November 1984.  He served in Germany from 13 November 1983 to 7 May 1985.  On 12 June 1985, he was assigned to the 5th Battalion, 29th Field Artillery, Fort Carson, CO.

4.  On 16 October 1985, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for wrongfully using marijuana.  Part of the punishment imposed was reduction to private/E-2.

5.  Between 10 and 22 January 1986, the applicant’s commander was notified the applicant had written over 24 bad checks to various merchants on numerous occasions that had been returned for insufficient funds.

6.  On 26 February 1986, he underwent a mental status evaluation.  The examining social worker found the applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, able to adhere to the right, and he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings.  He was found to have no history of mental illness and no psychiatric illness was present at that time.  He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed necessary by his command.
7.  On 17 March 1986, his commander was notified that the applicant had an outstanding debt of $400 to the First Bank Savings, Colorado, CO, resulting from checks being returned for insufficient funds.

8.  On 21 March 1986, a Bar to Reenlistment Certificate was imposed against him.  The bar to reenlistment was based on:

* his NJP on 16 October 1985
* his failure to pay just debts on several occasions to local merchants
* being disrespectful toward an NCO
* missing formation   

9.  On 1 April 1986, the applicant’s immediate commander notified the applicant that he was initiating separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, for misconduct.  The commander stated the reason for this action was the applicant’s established pattern of misconduct consisting of being absent from his appointed place of duty without authority, wrongfully using marijuana, failing to pay just debts, and uttering worthless checks.  

10.  On 2 April 1986, he was advised by his legal counsel of the basis for the separation action being initiated against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, the procedures and rights available to him.  He acknowledged he understood that if he received an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge he may be ineligible for many or all benefits under both State and Federal laws, and that he may expect to encounter prejudice in civilian life if he was issued a general discharge.  

11.  On 2 April 1986, he received NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for: 

* failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty
* disobeying a lawful order from an NCO
* being disrespectful in language toward an NCO

12.  On 8 April 1986, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  On 15 April 1986, he was discharged accordingly.

13.  The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct - a pattern of misconduct, with an under honorable conditions (general) characterization of service.  
14.  His record is void of any evidence that shows he was ever treated for or diagnosed with depression, anxiety, or PTSD while serving on active duty.

15.  On 24 March 2015, the applicant was sent a letter in response to his request for reconsideration of AR20140006027.  He was told his case was put on hold and that in order for the ABCMR to consider his application, he must provide medical documentation that supported his issue of PTSD.  No response was received from the applicant.

16.  There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

17.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 in effect at the time dealt with separation for various types of misconduct.  Paragraph 14-12b provided for the separation of a Soldier due to a pattern of misconduct.  This included discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct in violation of the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army regulations, civil law, and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army.  The issuance of an UOTHC discharge was normally considered appropriate for separations under the provisions of chapter 14 (emphasis added).

18.  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.

19.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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.

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 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. 

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 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.  

23.  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.


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 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 confirms the applicant demonstrated he could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel as evidenced by the bar to reenlistment that was placed against him for repeatedly failing to pay his just debts, the NJP he received on two occasions, using marijuana, failing to go to his appointed place of duty, disobeying a lawful order, and being disrespectful toward an NCO.  Accordingly, his commander initiated separation action against him.

2.  His separation processing was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reason for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  

3.  The applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded because he was treated unfairly by his 1SG and he suffers from PTSD as a result of his active duty service.  Notwithstanding his sincerity, the evidence of record does not show and the applicant has not provided any evidence that shows he was treated unfairly or that he has been diagnosed with and/or treated for depression, anxiety, or PTSD, during or after his military service.  

4.  The fact that he received a general discharge when an UOTHC discharge was normally considered appropriate shows that he was treated very fairly by his chain of command.  In addition, even if undiagnosed PTSD had been a causative factor in the misconduct that led to his discharge, it would have only supported upgrading his discharge to a general characterization of service if he had received an UOTHC discharge. 

5.  He is not entitled to an honorable discharge because an honorable discharge 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 meritorious.  Based on his history of misconduct, his service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel and his overall service does not rise to a fully honorable characterization of service.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.



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 AR20140006027, dated 16 December 2014.



      _______ _  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)                                         AR20150000730



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150000730



10


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1