IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  17 September 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150005589 


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 an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to a general discharge based on a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  

2.  The applicant states:

   a.  He was not in a sufficiently stable life position until now to request assistance with his discharge until receiving help from the Veterans of Foreign Wars.  His service records show he had two periods of service.  The first period was honorable.  During his first enlistment he held military occupational specialty (MOS) 94B (food service specialist).  During his second enlistment he held MOS 11B (infantryman).  

   b.  He was deployed to Iraq as an infantry Soldier and arrived in Saudi Arabia on 6 September 1990.  He was assigned to the 502nd Infantry, 101st Airborne Division.  He and his unit endured several chemical attacks.  Fearing for his life through those chemical attacks changed him forever.  His life has never been the same.  He still feels traumatized by the experience.  He will awaken from a "'dead" sleep reaching for his gas mask.  They would have an entire day of firefighting and then months of constant paranoia that he could die.  One day is too much.  He did not know how to deal with the PTSD and he fled from the military once the deployment was over.  

   c.  He sought help from his unit, but he was not taken seriously.  When a person has PTSD "they fight or flight."  He now realizes that he was in the throes of his PTSD and he took flight from his unit located at Fort Campbell, KY.  He told his commander that he couldn't cope with being back with civilians.  He left and has dealt with the consequences of his actions ever since.  He couldn't deal with the intrusive thoughts, the lack of sleep, the nightmares, and the paranoia.  It was too stimulating for him to continue being in the infantry environment.

   d.  He is currently receiving treatment for his diagnosis of PTSD.  He hopes the Board can understand that he did what he had to do to preserve what was left of his sanity after the combat.  He didn't want to serve dishonorably.  His honorable intentions are exemplified by his first enlistment and his commitment to switch to an infantry MOS for his second enlistment.  He is requesting an upgrade of his character to a general discharge in the interest of justice.

3.  The applicant provides copies of the following:

* National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service)
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Discharge Summaries
* letter from social worker

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 the cases 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.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Illinois Army National Guard (ILARNG) on 5 January 1985 in the rank/grade of specialist 4 (SP4)/E-4, with prior U.S. Army Reserve enlisted service.  He completed training and was awarded MOS 94B.  He was honorably discharged from the ILARNG on 4 January 1986.  His NGB Form 22 shows he was credited with completing 6 years, 2 months, and 5 days of total service for pay.  

3.  He enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-2 on 30 March 1988 for 4 years.  He completed training and was awarded MOS 11B.  He was promoted to pay grade E-4 on 30 October 1989.  

4.  He served in:

* Germany from 8 July 1988 through 7 July 1990
* Saudi Arabia from 8 September 1990 through 31 March 1991

5.  He was reported absent without leave (AWOL) on 3 May 1991 and was dropped from the rolls of his organization at Fort Campbell, KY, as a deserter on 3 June 1991.  He surrendered to military authorities on 20 June 1991 at Fort Sheridan, IL.

6.  His record is void of the complete facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge; however, his records contain the following:

   a.  An undated admission of AWOL memorandum showing that after consulting with counsel, he knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily declared he was AWOL from 3 May through 20 June 1991.  He acknowledged he could receive an UOTHC discharge and the results of the issuance of this type of discharge.  He waived his rights and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

   b.  An undated separation out-processing memorandum showing he acknowledged his out-processing briefing concerning eligibility for types and benefits of discharges in the event his discharge was approved.

   c.  A medical examination for separation statement dated 24 June 1991, wherein he elected not to undergo a separation medical examination.

   d.  Orders Number 152-2, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Personnel Control Facility, Fort Knox, KY on 27 August 1991, reducing him to E-1 effective 24 August 1991.

   e.  A DD Form 214 which shows he was discharged in pay grade E-1 on 13 September 1991, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Separations), chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial.  He was credited with completing 3 years, 3 months, and 26 days of active service.  He had time lost from 3 May through 19 June 1991.  His service was characterized as UOTHC.  His DD Form 214 lists in:

* Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) – the:

* Army Service Ribbon
* National Defense Service Medal
* Overseas Service Ribbon
* Southwest Asia Service medal with two bronze service stars
* Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16)
* Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar
* Combat Infantryman Badge

* Item 18 (Remarks) – Service in Southwest Asia from 8 September 1990 to 31 March 1991

7.  On 28 August 2008, in response to his request for an upgrade of his UOTHC discharge to an honorable discharge based on his diagnosis of a mental disorder, the ABCMR determined that since his discharge packet was not contained in his records a presumption of administrative regularity was applied and what the Army did was correct.  The ABCMR found the applicant had submitted no documentation to show that he had been diagnosed with a mental disorder and denied the requested relief.

8.  He provides the following evidence to support his current application:

   a.  A VA electronic discharge summary shows he had prior periods of hospitalization in the past 12 years and was recently admitted to a VA hospital on 19 February 2013 and then discharged on 2 April 2013.  Upon discharge, he was diagnosed with PTSD, mood disorder (not otherwise specified) and alcohol/cocaine dependence.  His current complaints were of sleeplessness, anxiety, mood swings, anger, nightmares about vehicles running into him, scud missiles failing, and other intrusive thoughts.  The summary stated he was last admitted there from 11 January through 1 February 2013 and was diagnosed with mood disorder and PTSD.  The applicant was currently receiving treatment with medication and he had admitted to recently using alcohol and cocaine.  He was discharged on 3 April 2013, at low imminent risk to harm himself and others, to a residential VA PTSD program.

   b.  A letter dated 18 June 2014 wherein a social worker with the Federal Health Care Center, North Chicago, IL, stated the applicant currently was homeless and resided temporarily at that facility.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel.  The regulation stated:
   a.  A Soldier whose conduct rendered him triable by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge could request a discharge for the good the service in lieu of a trial.  Chapter 10 required that there have been no element of coercion involved in the submission of such a request and that the Soldier was provided an opportunity to consult with counsel. The Soldier was required to sign the request indicating he understood he could receive a discharge UOTHC, the adverse nature of such a discharge, and the possible consequences thereof.  The regulation required that the request be forwarded through channels to the general court-martial convening authority.  An UOTHC would normally be furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service.

   b.  An honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally had met the standards of acceptance conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.

   c.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

10.  On 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards and Service Board for Correction of Military/Naval Records to carefully considered the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical consideration, and mitigating factors when taking actions on applications from former service members administratively discharged and who had 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.  In these cases, PTSD was not recognized as a diagnosis at the time of service and, in many cases, diagnoses were not made until decades after service was completed.  Quite often, however, the records of service members who served before PTSD was recognized, including those who served in Southwest Asia, do not contain substantive information concerning medical conditions in either Service treatment records or personnel records.  Liberal consideration should also be given in cases where civilian providers confer diagnoses of PTSD or PTSD-related conditions, when case records contained narratives that supported symptomatology at the time of service, or when any other evidence which could reasonably indicate PTSD or a PTSD-related disorder existed at the time of discharge which might had mitigated the misconduct that caused the UOTHC characterization of service.
11.  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 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 nosologic classification scheme.  Although controversial when first introduced, the PTSD diagnosis has filled an important gap in psychiatric theory and practice.  From a 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."

12.  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.

13.  The fifth edition of the DSM 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 criterion 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; or

		(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; or

		(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 or

		(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); and

		(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, and

		(6)  sleep disturbance.

	f.  Criterion F – Duration:  Persistence of symptoms (in Criteria B, C, D, and E) for more than 1 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.

14.  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 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 Soldiers' 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 a 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.

15.  On 3 September 2014 in view of the foregoing information, 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 applicants' service.

16.  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?

17.  Although 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 records 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.  BCM/NRs 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.  BCM/NRs 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 record is void of the complete facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge; however, it appears after charges were preferred against him and after consulting with counsel, he voluntarily, willingly, and in writing requested discharge from the Army.  (It is known that he was reported AWOL for more than 70 days which is a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.)  Discharge actions processed under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu by court-martial.  

2.  His administrative discharge appears to have been accomplished in compliance with applicable law and regulation in effect at the time with no indication of procedural error which would have jeopardized his rights.  As he submitted a request for a discharge in lieu of court-marital, he would not have the opportunity to plead guilty to the court-martial charges of being AWOL.  The characterization of his discharge was commensurate with the reason for his discharge and overall record of military service in accordance with the governing regulations in effect at the time.

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 recharacterization of their overall service.

4.  During his service in Southwest Asia the applicant was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge.  Medical documentation provided by the applicant shows he has been diagnosed with and is being treated for PTSD due to sleeplessness, nightmares, scud missiles attacks and other intrusive thoughts.  Therefore, it is reasonable to believe his PTSD existed at the time of his discharge.

5.  Therefore, it is concluded that PTSD was a causative factor for his AWOL that resulted in his discharge.  After carefully weighting that fact against the severity of his misconduct, there is sufficient mitigating evidence to warrant upgrading the characterization of his service to a general discharge, under honorable conditions, in the rank/grade of SPC/E-4, the highest rank he held.

6.  An honorable discharge upgrade cannot be supported because it is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and high performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise meritorious.  His lengthy period of AWOL diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  Therefore, weighting the aforementioned factors and his AWOL period, his overall service does not rise to a fully honorable characterization of service.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

___x____  ___x____  ___x____  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION




BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing to the applicant a DD Form 214 showing his characterization of service as "General, Under Honorable Conditions" and his rank/grade as "SPC/E-4” with an effective date of rank of 30 October 1989.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to upgrading his discharge to a fully honorable discharge.



      _______ _   _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)                                         AR20150005589





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150005589



12


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1