BOARD DATE:	  21 May 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150005322 


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 earlier request to upgrade his general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable.

2.  The applicant states he has been receiving treatment by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for his post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to include counseling and medication.  His VA disability rating was increased from 10 to 
70 percent.

3.  The applicant provides copies of:

* Medical Progress Note, dated 24 June 2010 (1 page)
* A VA Rating Decision, dated 22 November 2010 (6 pages)

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 AR20150000275, on 5 February 2015.

2.  The documents provided by the applicant are new evidence that requires consideration by the Board.



3.  The original Record of Proceedings (ROP) shows the Board made the following determinations:

	a.  His service records were void of and he had not provided any documentary evidence showing he had been diagnosed with PTSD.

	b.  His discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) was normally considered appropriate when a member is separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel).  His records contained no evidence of procedural or material errors that would have jeopardized his rights.

	c.  The Board acknowledged that 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.  Further, Soldiers who suffered from PTSD and were separated solely for misconduct subsequent to a traumatic event warranted careful consideration for the possible re-characterization of their overall service.

	d.  The Board recognized that the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) had previously reviewed his discharge in 1972; and had voted to upgrade his characterization to general, under honorable conditions.

	e.  The Board considered the severity of the court-martial charges brought against the applicant, which included an assault on another Soldier with a hunting knife and communicating a threat to a commissioned officer.  It determined that because of the seriousness of his crimes he was not entitled to a further upgrade of his characterization of service to honorable.

	f.  In view of the above, the board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade.

4.  The new documentary evidence now provided by the applicant shows:

	a.  The applicant provided the first page of a Progress Note dated 24 June 2010, from the Wilkes-Barre VA Medical Center.  This page indicates that the applicant was dissatisfied with the treatment he had been receiving and wanted a change in facilities.  The document discusses his clinical information and his personal/social history, including his recollections of an episode in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) when a helicopter he was in made an erratic landing without crashing and a second episode when his team leader was killed while they were on patrol.  He also spoke to his excessive use of alcohol, his marijuana smoking, and divorce in 1993.  The remainder of the report was not provided.
	b.  On 22 November 2010, the VA rendered a rating decision based on the applicant's request for an increase in his disability benefits.  He was originally granted a 10 percent disability rating for PTSD effective 17 December 2007 connected to his service in the RVN.  This rating was increased to 70 percent effective 1 October 2010 due to occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood.  He exhibited symptoms of near-continuous depression, impaired impulse control, neglect of personal appearance and hygiene, difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances and an inability to establish and maintain effective relationships.

5.  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 with UOTHC characterization of service and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service.

6.  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?

7.  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.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly 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.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.



DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his general, under honorable conditions discharge should be upgraded to honorable because he suffers from PTSD connected to his service in the RVN.  His PTSD has inhibited his ability to function and the VA currently rates him at 70 percent.

2.  The ADRB previously reviewed the circumstances of the applicant's UOTHC discharge and voted to grant him relief in 1972.  Accordingly, his characterization of service was upgraded to general, under honorable conditions.  

3.  The Secretary of Defense guidance for upgrading discharges based on a diagnosis of PTSD post service specifically addresses Service members discharged with an UOTHC discharge.  

4.  His service in the RVN was considered as was his diagnosis of PTSD by the VA.  However, based on the severity of the court-martial charges to include an assault on another Soldier and a threat to a commissioned officer, his overall period of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  In addition, the Secretary of Defense guidance specifically addressed Service members who received an UOTHC discharge.  Based on his acts of indiscipline, it would not be appropriate to upgrade his general, under honorable conditions discharge granted by the ADRB upgrade of his UOTHC discharge in 1972 as his service did not rise to the level of fully honorable.

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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20150000275, dated 5 February 2015.




      __________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)                                         AR20150005322



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150005322



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1