BOARD DATE:	       16 April 2015 

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150001963


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, an upgrade of the character of service reflected on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) from general under honorable conditions to honorable.    

2.  The applicant states, in effect, her psychologist suggested that she apply for an upgrade to help her deal with the shame she feels regarding her military service record and her sexual trauma.  She states she was raped by a group of Soldiers, most of whom were unknown to her, and after the rape occurred she did everything she could to get out of Shipton Kasern.  Not only was her military career destroyed, she has to deal with lifelong debilitating post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) issues.  She is ashamed of her discharge, losing her rank, and her poor service record; if she had not been raped, she would have had a successful career.    

3.  The applicant provides a copy of her DD Form 214, dated 31 March 1998, and 26 medical documents (progress notes) from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center in Seattle, Washington, all dated 3 October 2014.  

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 7 November 1996.  She completed the training requirements, she was awarded military occupational specialty 31U (Signal Support Systems Specialist), and she was assigned to Germany as her first duty station.    

3.  On 15 September 1997, she failed a record Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT).  She was subsequently counseled by her supervisor, who informed her that she would be retested in 90 days and recommended that she conduct additional physical training after duty hours under the supervision of her first line supervisor.  The applicant acknowledged having been counseled and understood the reason for this counseling.  She further acknowledged that the information stated on the DA Form 4856 (General Counseling Form) accurately reflected the counseling session and she provided no additional comments.  

4.  On 7 January 1998, she failed a second consecutive APFT.  She was again counseled by her supervisor who informed her that the failure constituted her second failure in a row and she was advised that she was being considered for separation from military service for unsatisfactory performance in accordance with chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200.  The applicant acknowledged having been counseled and that she understood the reason for this counseling.  She further acknowledged that the information stated on the DA Form 4856 accurately reflected the counseling session and she provided no additional comments. 

5.  Her records do not indicate any other disciplinary actions to include nonjudicial punishment.  

6.  On 3 February 1998, she was evaluated by a medical professional who indicated that she did not suffer from psychiatric disease, defect or personality disorder and she was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by her command.  

7.  On 10 February 1998, her immediate commander notified her of his intent to initiate separation action against her in accordance with Army Regulation 
635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  Her commander remarked that she had failed two consecutive record APFTs and he recommended she be issued a General Discharge Certificate.  

8.  A Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination) and a Standard Form 93 (Report of Medical History), both dated 26 February 1998, show she was found medically qualified for separation.

9.  On 10 March 1998, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander's notification.  On 11 March 1998, she consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation for unsatisfactory performance, the type of discharges she could receive, if she received a discharge/character less than honorable she could make an application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or the ABCMR for upgrading, and its effect on further enlistment or reenlistment, the possible effects of this discharge, and of the procedures/rights that were available to her.  She stated she would submit statements on her own behalf; but later decided not to submit statements
 
10.  In an undated memorandum, the applicant’s immediate commander initiated separation action against her in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  Her commander cited the two failures of the APFT as the reason for the separation action.  He also stated rehabilitation attempts of a structured individual physical training program and additional physical training during non-duty hours had failed.    

11.  In an undated memorandum, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of unsatisfactory performance.  Additionally, the separation authority  directed the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate and that she would not be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve.  

12.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 31 March 1998.  The DD Form 214 she was issued confirms she was discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions by reason of unsatisfactory performance.  She completed a total of 1 year, 4 months, and 24 days of net active service.  

13.  There is no indication she applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of her discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

14.  She provided 26 medical documents (progress notes) from the VA Medical Center in Seattle, Washington, printed on 3 October 2014, which document her mental health appointments from on or about 1 May to 15 September 2014.  These documents, in effect, describe her memories of MST (Military Sexual Trauma), anxiety, stress, issues with weight gain, substance abuse, depression, and panic disorder with a diagnosis of PTSD. 

15.  There is no evidence in her available military records that indicates she was sexually assaulted or requested a transfer during her period of active service. 

16.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 states initiation of separation proceedings is required for Soldiers without medical limitations who have two consecutive failures of the Army Physical Fitness Test, unless the responsible commander chooses to impose a bar to reenlistment per Army Regulation 601-280 (Total Army Retention Program).  The regulation requires that separation action be taken when in the commander’s judgment the individual will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further military training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.  Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation is characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

17.  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." 

18.  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.

19.  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. 

20.  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 (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.  

21.  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.

22.  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?

23.  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.  The applicant's request for an upgrade of the character of service reflected on her DD Form 214 from general, under honorable conditions to honorable was carefully considered.

2.  The Board acknowledges the applicant's contention that she was a victim of a sexual assault incident, she has a diagnosis of PTSD, and that she desired to transfer out of her unit; however, none of these contentions are supported in the available military records.  Unfortunately, she provides no evidence that PTSD was a causative factor in her unsatisfactory performance.  The VA medical records that describe her current medical conditions were created 16 years after her military service.

3.  The evidence of record shows that after her first APFT failure, the applicant was placed on a remedial physical training program and was counseled regarding her responsibility to meet Army fitness standards.  However, she failed a second APFT and was recommended for separation as a result of this unsatisfactory performance.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. There does not seem to be an error or an injustice in her discharge.  

4.  The applicant's chain of command determined that her overall military service did not meet the standards for a fully honorable discharge as defined in Army Regulation 635-200 and characterized her service as general under honorable conditions.  As a result, there is no basis for changing a properly-assigned character of service.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

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)                                         AR20080009654



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150001963



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1