BOARD DATE:   19 February 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150000801


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, correction of his military records by upgrading his undesirable discharge (UD) to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he wants his UD upgraded based on his having post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

	a.  He is a 67 year old man.  He has worked hard all of his life, even before joining the U.S. Army.  He was looking for a military career which is why he reenlisted after completing his first tour of duty in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN).  He was sent back 11 months later to the RVN.  During this tour in the RVN he received a letter from his wife saying she was tired of being both Mom and Dad.  They had two small children at the time.  Both he and his wife were young.  She wanted a divorce.  He returned from the RVN in 1971 and was sent to Fort Hood, Texas.  He was a specialist four with over 2 years of service.  It seemed like the U.S. Army had just pushed him aside.  His family was gone.  He did not do anything that deserved his getting a dishonorable discharge.

	b.  He is now remarried.  His wife and he have worked hard to get a little place to live.  They are barely able to keep it.  It takes all of the $1,500.00 they make each month and the house still needs work.  They are both disabled.  They need his discharge upgraded so they can receive Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits.




3.  The applicant provides copies of:

* Recommendation for Elimination, dated 12 May 1972 (page 3 and 1st Indorsement only)
* Approval of waiver of rehabilitation, dated 12 May 1972

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.  On 29 September 1967, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 62G (Quarry Machine Operator).

	a.  On 9 February 1968, he departed Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri for duty in the RVN.

	b.  On 8 March 1968, he was assigned to Company A, 36th Engineer Battalion.

	c.  On 3 September 1968, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time.

	d.  On 2 November 1968, he was assigned to the 94th Engineer Detachment.

	e.  On 24 November 1968, he was advanced to specialist four, pay grade E-4.

	f.  On 2 March 1969, he departed the RVN for duty at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

3.  On 1 July 1969, the applicant was discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  He had completed 1 year, 9 months, and 3 days of service characterized as honorable.
4.  On 2 July 1969, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army.

5.  On 29 January 1970, the applicant departed Fort Bragg for a second tour of duty in the RVN.

	a.  On 7 March 1970, he was assigned to the 94th Engineer Detachment.

	b.  On 26 May 1970, he was reassigned to Company D, 69th Engineer Battalion.

	c.  On 14 January 1971, he departed the RVN for duty at Fort Hood, Texas.

6.  On 16 February 1971, the applicant was assigned to Company A, 63rd Engineer Battalion located at Fort Hood, Texas.

	a.  On 8 September 1971, he accepted NJP for being absent without authority (AWOL) from 0900 hours, 31 August to 1630 hours, 1 September 1971.

	b.  On 17 September 1971, he accepted NJP for being AWOL from 10 to 
14 September 1971.

	c.  On 12 October 1971, he accepted NJP for being AWOL from 0700 hours, 
1 October to 0700 hours, 2 October 1971.

	d.  On 14 February 1972, he accepted NJP for failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 7 February 1972.

7.  On 25 April 1972, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation.  His behavior was normal.  He was fully alert and oriented and displayed a level mood.  His thinking was clear, his thought content normal and his memory good.  There was no significant mental illness.  The applicant was able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right and was capable of participating in the separation processing.

8.  The discharge packet is missing from his military records.  However, his Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge (DD Form 214) shows that he was administratively discharged on 30 May 1972, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness.  His service was characterized as under conditions other than honorable.  He completed a total of 4 years, 7 months and 17 days of creditable active duty service.



9.  There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

10.  Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness.  Soldiers who were involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness.  An Undesirable Discharge Certificate was normally considered appropriate.

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

	a.  Paragraph 3-7a provided that an honorable discharge was a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.

	b.  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 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 administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions 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 (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 under other than honorable conditions (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 under other than honorable conditions 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.

19.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)) paragraph 2-9 provides that the Board begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his military records should be corrected by upgrading his UD to honorable because he had PTSD.

2.  The available evidence of record shows that the applicant had accepted NJP on five separate occasions.

3.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record.

4.  Since the time of the applicant's discharge, 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.  The available evidence fails to show that the applicant was ever diagnosed by a qualified medical authority with having PTSD, or any other mental condition that may have been a contributing factor in the misconduct that led to his UD.

7.  In view of the above, the applicant's request should be denied.



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)                                         AR20140004034



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150000801



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1