IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  26 March 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150001817 


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 request to upgrade his under other than honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect:

* his service was honorable and, because of his confidence in his leaders, there was no task for which he would not have given his all
* he has been suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and it has taken its toll on his life
* he had almost given up hope, but respectfully requests favorable consideration of his request based upon a review of his records

3.  The applicant provides:

* four letters from the Army Review Boards Agency
* letter to President Obama
* letter from the Director/Counselor of the Unicorn Haven [a nonprofit Christian counseling program]
* Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Board proceedings for Docket Number AR1999030842
* DD Form 293 (Application for Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States)
* letter from the U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center
* Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision
* three letters from VA
* printout from VA

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR1999030842 on 10 May 2000.

2.  The applicant submitted an initial application, which was denied, and multiple requests for reconsideration, which were not considered by the Board.

	a.  In light of the 3 September 2014 memorandum by the Secretary of Defense, the applicant has grounds to have his previous requests given new consideration.

	b.  In view of the circumstances of this case, and as an exception to the policy, this application for reconsideration warrants consideration by the Board.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 February 1983 and, following initial training, was awarded military occupational specialty 91B (Medical Specialist).  The highest rank/grade held while on active duty was specialist four/E-4.  

4.  Records show, in 1983, he was assigned to the 547th Medical Company, which at that time was stationed at Hunter Army Airfield, Savannah, GA.  While no documents within his official military personnel file confirm this, the applicant states he deployed to the Sinai as part of a medical team in support of the Multi-National Force and Observers stationed there.  It was during this deployment, he states, he was exposed to traumatic experiences which led to his PTSD.

5.  Available records indicate the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on two occasions:

* on 30 January 1987, for disrespectful language toward a superior noncommissioned officer (NCO) and for willfully disobeying the lawful order of a superior NCO; the punishment included reduction in rank from E-4 to E-3
* on 19 February 1987, for two specifications of failing to go, at the time prescribed, to his appointed place of duty (failure to repair); the punishment included reduction in rank from E-3 to E-2

6.  On 12 March 1987, his commander preferred court-martial charges for six specifications of failure to repair, two specifications of willfully disobeying the lawful order of a superior NCO, and one specification of wrongful use of marijuana.

7.  On 8 April 1987, the applicant 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 an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and the procedures and rights available to him.  Subsequent to receiving legal counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  

8.  In his request for discharge, he indicated he:

* was making the request of his own free will and had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person 
* understood by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charges against him, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge or a dishonorable discharge
* understood if the discharge request was approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA
* understood he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws
* elected to submit a statement in his own behalf

9.  On 10 April 1987, the separation authority approved his request for discharge in lieu of court-martial with the issuance of an Under other than Honorable Discharge Certificate and reduction to private/E-1.  On 16 April 1987, he was discharged accordingly.

10.  His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under other than honorable conditions for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  This form shows he completed 4 years, 2 months, and 15 days of net active creditable service.  He was awarded or authorized:

* Army Good Conduct Medal
* Army Service Ribbon
* Overseas Service Ribbon
* Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16)

11.  On 10 February 1988, he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) requesting upgrade of his under other than honorable discharge.  His request was denied.

12.  The applicant appealed the ADRB decisions and requested to appear before the ADRB.  On 13 September 1993, the ADRB conducted a hearing with the applicant and his counsel present.  The ADRB denied the applicant's appeal.

13.  He applied to the ABCMR, requesting upgrade of his discharge.  On 10 May 2000, the Board considered and denied the applicant's request. 

14.  On 25 July 2005, the VA provided a rating decision which showed the applicant was found to have service-connected PTSD.  The rating decision states an evaluation of 70 percent was assigned as of 20 July 2001 for occupational and social impairment.  Deficiencies identified include suicidal ideation, near-continuous panic or depression, impaired impulse control, and inability to establish and maintain effective relationships.  Details as to the cause of the applicant's PTSD are not given, but, in a letter of support to the VA, dated 1 August 2001, the Director and Counselor for the nonprofit Unicorn Haven attributes his PTSD to the deaths of three fellow Soldiers and the critical wounding of a fourth while the applicant was deployed in the Sinai with the 547th Medical Company.  

15.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time, provides policy and guidance for enlisted separations.

   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 at any time after the charges have been preferred.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

   b.  Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is given when the quality of the Soldier’s service has generally met standards of acceptable conduct and duty performance.  

   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.

16.  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."

17.  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.

18.  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)

* Irritable or aggressive behavior
* Self-destructive or reckless behavior
* Hypervigilance
* Exaggerated startle response
* Problems in concentration
* 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

19.  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.

20.  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.

21.  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?

22.  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 causeal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. Discharges under this chapter are due to a voluntary request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant voluntarily, willingly, and in writing, requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  All requirements of law and regulation were met, and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

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

3.  The applicant provides evidence that he has been suffering from PTSD.  It is concluded that the PTSD conditions were a causative factor in the misconduct that led to the discharge.  After carefully weighing that fact against the severity of the applicant's misconduct, there is sufficient mitigating evidence to warrant upgrading the characterization of the applicant's service to a general discharge under honorable conditions and reinstating his rank/grade to private/E-2 (the rank held at the time he requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200).  However, this does not change the narrative reason for his separation.
BOARD VOTE:

____X____  ___X_____  ___X_____  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a amendment of the ABCMR's decision set forth in Docket Number AR19990308421, dated 10 May 2000.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by re-issuing the applicant's DD Form 214 for the period ending 16 April 1987 to show the characterization of service as "General, Under Honorable Conditions" and his rank/grade as private/E-2 with an effective date of 19 February 1987.




      _______ _   _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)                                         AR20150001817



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150001817



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1