BOARD DATE:	  23 June 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150005689 


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 undesirable discharge (UD) to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states:

     a.  He was absent without leave for 30 days in August 1958 and when he returned he was court-martialed.  His punishment consisted of reduction to private and confinement for 6 months.  He was under the impression that he would receive a general discharge (GD) but that was not to be.  He asked for and received a discharge under Army Regulation 635-208 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Undesirable Habits and Traits of Character). 

     b.  He is proud to have been given the privilege of serving his country for over 12 years but he is ashamed of his behavior that led to his discharge.  He knows now that he was an alcoholic.  He does not know if it was caused by PTSD; however, he knows that he was not able to sleep without the aid of alcohol for thirty years.

      c.  He has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  PTSD was not recognized as a diagnosis at the time of his service.  He is a combat veteran of the Korean War.  He served as a medic and was required to assist wounded and dying personnel on the battlefield.  His awards include the Purple Heart and the Combat Medical Badge.

      d.  He resorted to using alcohol to help him sleep and to escape the memories of his combat experience.  Under the influence of alcohol and mental anguish he made poor decisions and received a discharge that he is ashamed of.

      e.  Following his discharge from active duty he attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and he has not consumed alcohol since 1980.  He has actively served his community assisting others with alcohol problems, running a successful business, and being appointed to the local hospital board and the Kenai Borough Planning Commission.  His community service activities were recognized by the Alaska Legislature in 1994 when he was named the "Alaskan of the Year." 

     f.  Through perseverance and hard work he has overcome the nightmare of coping with PTSD.  Medical Reports and a Physician’s Nexus Statement show his PTSD was caused by his combat experience during the Korean War.  He has served his family and community well; however, at 85 years of age one of his greatest desires is to leave this world with an HD.

3.  The applicant provides:

* a memorandum, subject:  Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Request by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
* DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge)
* orders
* self-authored statement
* medical documents
* four letters of support
* information pertaining to post-service achievements

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's military records are not available to the Board for review.  A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members' records at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973.  It is believed his records were lost or destroyed in that fire.  However, there were sufficient documents remaining in a reconstructed record for the Board to conduct a fair/impartial review of this case.

3.  General Order Number 2, issued by Headquarters, 7th Cavalry Regiment, dated 12 March 1951 shows he was awarded the Purple Heart for wounds received on 30 November 1950 in Unsang-Ni, Republic of Korea. 

4.  His reconstructed record shows he reenlisted in the Regular Army on           31 October 1956 after having three prior Regular Army enlistments.  His grade at the time of this enlistment was sergeant first class (SFC) and his military occupational specialty was 520.00 (Utilities) Worker).

5.  The complete facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not available for review with this case.  However, his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows:

* he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 with a separation program number (SPN) of 386 (Unfitness - Established pattern of shirking)
* his service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions
* he was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate
* he had 186 days of lost time under Section 6(a), App 2b, MCM 1951
* he completed 2 years, 3 months, and 13 days of creditable net active service during this period
* he held the rank/grade of private (PV1)/E-1 at the time of his discharge

6.  There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 

7.  The applicant provides a Physician’s Nexus Statement from a Master of Social Work, Licensed Clinical Social Worker at a Veterans Center in Sarasota, FL.  He affirms the applicant's diagnosis of PTSD and that it was caused by or was a direct result of his military service.  He stated the applicant had observable metabolic features, facial features, body features and language/speech indicators that indicated the description of the traumatizing Korean environment was being flashed back to him.  He further stated that the PTSD symptoms existed during his military service and some still exist.
8.  Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel who were found unfit or unsuitable for further military service.  The regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members who displayed undesirable habits and traits were subject to separation for unfitness.  A UD was normally considered appropriate; however, the separation authority could issue a general under honorable conditions discharge (GD) or HD if it was warranted based on the member's overall record of service.

9.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPN Codes), in effect at the time of the applicant's separation from active duty, provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPN codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.  The SPN of “386” is identified as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers discharged for unfitness based on an established pattern of shirking.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) sets forth the basic policy 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 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.

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 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." 
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 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. 

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 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.  

15.  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 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.

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 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.  The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge action.  However, the available evidence confirms he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 with SPN code 386.  He was given an under conditions other than honorable characterization of service.  The characterization of his discharge was commensurate with the reason for discharge in accordance with the governing regulations in effect at the time.

2.  The available records show he was awarded a PH for wounds he sustained during his service in Korea.  Prior to his UOTHC discharge, he served honorably through three prior enlistments and he attained the rank of SFC.     

3.  He was recently diagnosed as having PTSD by a Licensed Clinical Social Worker at a Veterans Center in Sarasota, FL, who indicated he had observable metabolic features, facial features, body features and language/speech indicators that indicated the description of the traumatizing Korean environment was being flashed back to him.  He further stated that the PTSD symptoms existed during his military service and some still exist.

4.  At the time of his discharge, PTSD was largely unrecognized by the medical community and DOD.  However, 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.

5.  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.

6.  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 his misconduct, there is sufficient mitigating evidence to warrant upgrading the characterization of his service to a general discharge under honorable conditions and restoring his rank/grade to SFC/E-7.  Based on this same evidence, however, his service during his final enlistment did not rise to the level of being fully honorable.  

7.  There is no available information pertaining to his date of rank (DOR) to SFC.  Therefore, there is no basis for changing the DOR listed on his DD Form 214.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

___X_____  __X______  ___X__  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined the evidence presented is 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 his DD Form 214 for the period ending 19 June 1959 to show his character of service as "General Under Honorable Conditions" and showing his rank/grade as SFC/E-7.

2.  The Board further determined 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 undesirable discharge to fully honorable.



      _________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)                                         AR20150005689



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150005689



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1