IN THE CASE OF:  	  

		BOARD DATE:  26 March 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150002089 


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, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded and his rank be restored to sergeant (SGT)/pay grade E-5.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his discharge was unjust under the circumstances because he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major recurrent depression. 

3.  The applicant provides copies of his military and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical records and a copy of his award of the Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device (BSM w/ "V" Device).

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 AR20080004852, on 26 June 2008
* Docket Number AR20080010635, on 11 September 2008

2.  The applicant does not meet the two-tiered criteria for a request for reconsideration in that his current request was not received within one year of the previous Board's decision.  However, as a one-time exception to policy, his request will be considered by the Board to satisfy his contention that his diagnosis of PTSD is a direct result of his combat actions for which he was awarded the BSM w/ "V" device and the Combat Infantryman Badge. 

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 August 1986.  He completed his one-station unit training as an infantryman at Fort Benning, Georgia and was transferred to Fort Lewis, Washington for his first duty assignment.

4. On 7 March 1988, he was transferred to Korea and on 28 February 1989 he reenlisted for a period of 5 years and a selective reenlistment bonus.  He departed Korea on 28 April 1989 for assignment to Fort Polk, Louisiana.  

5.  On 20 December 1989, he and his unit deployed as part of Joint Task Force – South in Operation Just Cause to support the invasion of Panama.  He was awarded the BSM w/ "V" Device and the Combat Infantryman Badge.  

6.  On 10 October 1991, he was again transferred to Korea and was promoted to the rank of sergeant (SGT) on 1 March 1992.  He departed Korea on 25 August 1992 for assignment to Fort Benning.

7.  The applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) on 25 May 1993 and remained absent until 1 June 1993.  He again departed AWOL on 10 June 1993 and remained absent in desertion until he was returned to military control on 9 June 1994.  

8.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s administrative discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his records do contain a duly authenticated DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) which shows that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions in the pay grade of E-1 on 16 August 1994 under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 7 years and 3 days of active service and had 371 days of lost time due to AWOL.

9.  A review of the medical records provided by the applicant show that the applicant was admitted to the hospital at Fort Polk during the period 20 April – 
27 April 1990 and was diagnosed with the following:

* AXIS I - PTSD
* AXIS I - Alcohol Abuse, continuous
* AXIS I - Marital problems
* AXIS I - Occupational problems
* AXIS I - Adjustment disorder with depressed mood and suicidal Ideation, resolved
* AXIS II - Dependent traits
* AXIS III - None

10.  On 11 January 2008, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.  The ADRB determined his discharge was both proper and equitable. 

11.  A review of his VA medical records shows he was also diagnosed by the VA with PTSD.  

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  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 UOTHC is normally considered appropriate as well as reduction to the lowest enlisted pay grade.

13.  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.

14.  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.  

15.  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." 

16.  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.

17.  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. 

18.  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.  

19.  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.

20.  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?

21.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In the absence of evidence to show otherwise, it must be presumed that the  applicant's discharge proceedings, for misconduct under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trail by court-martial, were conducted in accordance with the law and regulations in effect at the time.  The characterization of the applicant's discharge was commensurate with the reason for discharge and the overall record of military service in accordance with the governing regulations in effect at the time.

2.  The applicant's combat service in support of Operation Just Cause and his award for heroism and the Combat Infantryman Badge are noted. 

3.  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 re-characterization of their overall service.

4.  A review of the applicant's record and the evidence that he provided shows that he was subjected to the ordeals of war while supporting Operation Just Cause in Panama.  

5.  Subsequent to these experiences, medical evidence shows the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD/PTSD-related symptoms by a competent mental health professional.  Therefore, it is reasonable to believe the applicant's PTSD condition existed prior to his discharge.

6.  The applicant's record is void of any serious previous misconduct during this period of service and the misconduct of going AWOL appears to have been an isolated event that was the result of an uncharacteristic lapse in judgment.

7.  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 restoring his rank/grade to SGT/E-5 with an effective date of 1 March 1992. 

8.  He is not entitled to an honorable discharge because an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and 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 extensive history of AWOL, his service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct also renders his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

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 recommendation for relief.  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 August 1994 to 



show the characterization of service as "General, Under Honorable Conditions" and his rank /grade as SGT/E-5 with an effective date of 1 March 1992.




      _______ _   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)                                         AR20150002089



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150002089



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1