IN THE CASE OF:	    

		BOARD DATE:	  21 May 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150004659 


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 his general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states he was hospitalized in February 1999 at a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical treatment center.  He received no counsel, therapy, or help concerning his mental condition.  He was deployed shortly thereafter to Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1999 to 2000.  His problems were exacerbated due to the horrible atrocities that he witnessed.  Upon returning to the United States, he had no help.

3.  The applicant provides:

* his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) with a separation date of 25 May 2001
* one page of a VA awards letter

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 18 August 1998, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11M (Mechanized Infantryman).

3.  On 14 December 1998, he was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 16th Infantry at Fort Riley, KS.  He deployed to Bosnia-Herzegovina during the period 24 August 1999 to 23 March 2000.  He was promoted to specialist (SPC)/pay grade E-4 on 1 June 2000.

4.  On 28 November 2000, he received a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR) for driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol on 26 November 2000 in Geary County, KS.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR and did not desire to make a statement or submit documents in his behalf.

5.  On 5 January 2001, his company commander recommended the GOMOR be filed in the applicant's official military personnel file (OMPF).  He stated the applicant had been a constant source of trouble since his arrival in the unit.  Despite numerous counseling sessions and rehabilitative periods from the chain of command, his performance had steadily decreased since the unit's return from Bosnia.  He was involved in a large altercation at Riley's in September.  He received counseling from his chain of command and promised to improve his conduct.  During the 1st Battalion, 16th Infantry lockdown in November, he went absent without leave and abandoned his guard post.  He received a field grade Article 15 and was reduced to private/pay grade E-1.  His final act of indiscipline occurred over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend when he was arrested for DUI and minor in consumption.  The applicant had proved he did not deserve or want another chance to rehabilitate.  He showed no sign of ever being a Soldier or leader in the Army, and he cannot be trusted by the chain of command.

6.  On 8 January 2001, the Commander, 1st Battalion recommended that the GOMOR be filed in the applicant's OMPF.  His performance to date had been unsatisfactory.  He had received counseling statements for unacceptable behavior and had been punished under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  He showed no potential for promotion or increased responsibility.  

7.  On 27 January 2001, the imposing authority directed the GOMOR be filed in the applicant's OMPF.

8.  The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which ultimately led to his discharge.

9.  On 25 May 2001, he was discharged by reason of a pattern of misconduct under the provisions of paragraph 14-12b, Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations).  He completed 2 years, 9 months, and 
8 days of active service that was characterized as under honorable conditions (general).

10.  He applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge.  On 14 December 2011, the ADRB determined his discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny an upgrade.

11.  He submitted one page from a VA award letter that shows he was granted service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with a 100 percent disability rating effective 15 July 2011.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  

	 a.  An honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitled the recipient to benefits provided by law.  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 have been clearly inappropriate.  

	 b.  Chapter 14 established policy and prescribed procedures for separating personnel for misconduct because of minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, and absence without leave.

		 (1)  Paragraph 14-12b provides for the discharge of Soldier for a pattern of misconduct consisting of one of the following:

			  (a) Discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities.

			  (b) Discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Army regulations, the civil law, and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army.

		 (2)  A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. 

13.  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." 

14.  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.

15.  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. 

16.  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 (emphasis added) 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.  

17.  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 (emphasis added) 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.

18.  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?

19.  Although the DOD acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions (emphasis added) 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 under other than honorable conditions (emphasis added) 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 under other than honorable conditions (emphasis added).  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 his general discharge under honorable conditions was carefully considered.

2.  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.

3.  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.
4.  The partial letter he provided from the VA shows he was diagnosed with PTSD effective 15 July 2011.

5.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the applicant's administrative discharge was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no violation of his rights.  Although he could have been recommended for an under other than honorable conditions (emphasis added) discharge, his commander elected to recommend a characterization of general under honorable conditions.  The fact that he was discharged with this more favorable characterization indicates his commander took into consideration the entirety of his military service and the severity of his misconduct, to include any mental health issues he may have had at the time of discharge.  Accordingly, his discharge and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

6.  The GOMOR he received for his DUI and his reduction in grade for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice show he did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty expected of Army personnel.

7.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient basis for granting the applicant an upgrade of his discharge.

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)                                         AR20140010220



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150004659



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1