IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:  23 July 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150006896 


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:

The applicant defers to counsel.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests an upgrade of the applicant's under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  

2.  Counsel states, in effect:

	a.  On 3 September 2014, the Honorable C______ H____, then Secretary of Defense, issued a Memorandum, subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NR) Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming PTSD.  

	b.  The above memorandum instructs the boards to "fully and carefully consider every petition based on [PTSD] brought by each veteran."  The applicant contacted their firm shortly after he became aware of the above memorandum.  In the early 1990s, the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD based on his military service during the Vietnam era; but he was previously unaware that his severe PTSD could be considered a mitigating factor in determining whether he was eligible for a discharge upgrade.  As soon as the applicant became aware of the memorandum and its instructions to the Boards, he took action to file this petition.   

	c.  Although the applicant was discharged in 1974, the memorandum states time limits to reconsider decisions will be liberally waived for applications covered [by this memorandum].  Therefore, the applicant's petition is based on his PTSD and the relative equities involved in this matter weigh in favor of waiving the statute of limitations.  The applicant’s counsel requests that this Board waive the statute of limitations and consider the applicant's petition.

	d.  Counsel requests that the Board upgrade his discharge based on the fact that the misconduct which led to his UOTHC discharge was directly and causally related to his PTSD - a condition caused by his service which was not diagnosed at the time of discharge.  The misconduct that led to his discharge was a symptom of the then undiagnosed medical condition.  

	e.  The applicant explains in his affidavit that he was subjected to abuse and extremely inhumane conditions during his military service.  The abuse began in 1972 when the applicant was beaten and humiliated by a drill sergeant during basic training.  This incident created a fear of and distrust for his military superiors and this led the applicant down a path of drug/alcohol abuse and misconduct.

	f.  The applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) while stationed at Schofield Barracks, HI and was ultimately arrested.  While in the Schofield Barracks stockade, he was assaulted by a group of men.  This traumatic event led to even more alcohol/drug abuse and misconduct.  The applicant was incarcerated in Fort Riley, KS.  

	g.  The applicant was mistreated by Military Police (MP) at Fort Riley.  On one occasion, the applicant was told to strip and mop the floor and on another occasion an MP told the applicant that he wished he would run away so he could shoot him.  The MP stated he would get "a transfer and a carton of cigarettes" if he shot the applicant.  While at Fort Riley, the applicant was again subjected to physical violence from other inmates.  He was rebuffed by the MPs when he asked for help.  The applicant's affidavit depicts a hellish experience, a mismanaged disciplinary process, and a missed medical diagnosis.  In today's professional military, such conditions would never be allowed to exist; however, the Vietnam era was a difficult time for the military and the applicant's account is consistent with other accounts of the military disciplinary process during this time.  

3.  Additionally, counsel states:

	a.  The applicant's military records indicate he received numerous Article 15s from a variety of commands.  In 2013, the American Psychiatric Association revised the PTSD diagnostic criteria in the Fifth Edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5).  The DSM-5 specifically states symptoms of PTSD can include feeling alienated from others, irritable or aggressive behavior, and self-destructive or reckless behavior, all of which are plainly evident in the applicant's affidavit and in his military records.  All of the applicant's misconduct as well as the other incidents of more serious misconduct was rooted in the applicant's PTSD.  

	b.  On 17 March 2015, the applicant was examined by Dr. N_______ L___ of Post Trauma Resources in Columbia, SC, a licensed psychologist who specializes in the diagnosis and treatment of PTSD.  During the consult with Dr. L___, the applicant underwent a battery of tests to determine whether he suffered from PTSD, to determine the causes of the PTSD, and the behaviors associated with his PTSD.  Dr. L____ concluded the trauma the applicant suffered while in the military caused his PTSD and that the PTSD could have caused the applicant's misbehavior that led to his discharge.  Dr. L____ stated, "in my opinion, Mr. W____'s [applicant] current symptoms are consistent with the diagnosis of PTSD.  These symptoms are as likely as not associated with stressors experienced while on active duty and more likely than not the cause of his substance misuse and absences without leave.  In my opinion, his symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress exited [sic] at the time of discharge and mitigate his conduct."

	c.  Today, the U.S. military works actively to diagnose and assist Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines suffering from PTSD and other mental health issues.  Military leaders and physicians receive training that allows them to distinguish between Soldiers in need of discipline and Soldiers in need of mental healthcare services.  It is firmly believe that if the military leaders of the Vietnam era had these resources available at the time of the applicant's discharge he would have received healthcare treatment, not punishment.

	d.  The applicant's life has changed immensely since 1974.  His attempts to self medicate with illegal drugs and alcohol, which began in the military, ended in the late 1980s.  For nearly 30 years, the applicant has refrained from using illegal drugs and alcohol.  Since the applicant has received medication to treat his mental health condition, he has graduated from college, earned a master's degree in counseling, and works now as a licensed professional counselor helping others who struggle with a variety of mental healthcare issues, including PTSD.  

	e.  The applicant has served as a deacon in Clover Presbyterian Church, is an upstanding member of the Clover, SC Community, and is a much loved brother, son, uncle, and great-uncle.  Considering the applicant's current outstanding civic record after his mental health treatment, it is logical to believe that he would not have received the UOTHC discharge if he had received treatment during his time in the military, which has been a hindrance on his ability to participate fully as a productive member of society.  

4.  Counsel provides:

* Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments, subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming PTSD, dated 3 September 2014, with attachment
* Applicant's affidavit
* Letter, dated 18 September 2013, from the National Personnel Records Center
* Documents from the applicant's Official Military Personnel File
* Psychological Evaluation, dated 17 March 2015, from Post Trauma Resources

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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 February 1972.  Upon successful completion of basic and advanced individual training he was assigned to Hawaii in July 1972 as an artilleryman.  

3.  His disciplinary history includes acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on four separate occasions for the following offenses:

* failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (16 September 1972, 11 October 1972, 5 November 1972), 
* wrongfully appeared at Building 845, Quad J, Schofield Barracks, HI in civilian clothing and without his prescribed guard uniform and equipment
* behaved with disrespect toward a commissioned officer (three specifications)
* disobeyed a lawful command from a commissioned officer 

4.  He received a bar to reenlistment from his unit commander in February 1973.  

5.  On 7 May 1973, he was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 12 February to 2 March 1973.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 3 months and a forfeiture of $150 pay for 4 months.  His sentence to confinement at hard labor was completed at the Retraining Brigade, Fort Riley.  He was returned to duty at Fort McClellan, AL in August 1973.  

6.  On 6 November 1973, he was convicted by a second special court-martial of being AWOL from 4 to 13 September 1973 and from 19 September to 1 October 1973.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 4 months and a forfeiture of $217.00 pay for 4 months.  

7.  In February 1974, following his second confinement at Fort Riley, he was assigned to Fort Jackson, SC.  A line of duty investigation found the applicant's injuries received in a single vehicle accident on 21 May 1974 not to be in the line of duty but due to his own misconduct when medical authorities determined he was driving while intoxicated.  The applicant departed AWOL a fourth time on 
17 July 1974 and returned to military control on 17 September 1974.

8.  A mental status evaluation conducted on 18 September 1974 noted the applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.  The medical history, which he submitted for his medical examination for separation indicated his health was "GOOD" and he was found medically qualified for separation with a physical profile of 111111.

9.  His service record is void of evidence, with the exception of the car accident, which shows he was treated by medical personnel for alcohol or drug addiction while he was serving on active duty.

10.  On 20 September 1974, charges were preferred against him for being AWOL from 17 July to 16 September 1974.

11.  On 23 September 1974, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and he was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.  Following counseling, the applicant submitted a voluntary written request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his request for discharge, he indicated he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge against him or of a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  He acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request was approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA), and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.  The applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

12.  The applicant's chain of command recommended approval of his request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 15 October 1974, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge request and directed that he be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 and given an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 

13.  On 17 October 1974, he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he completed 1 year, 9 months, and 12 days of total active service and he had 314 days of lost time.  

14.  On 5 February 1982, the ADRB denied his appeal for an upgrade of his discharge.

15.  Counsel provided a psychological evaluation, dated 17 March 2015, which shows the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD (controlled).  The psychiatrist stated the applicant's current symptoms are consistent with the diagnosis of PTSD.  These symptoms are as likely as not associated with stressors experienced while on active duty and more likely than not the cause of his substance misuse and AWOL.  The psychiatrist stated the applicant's symptoms of PTSD existed at the time of his discharge and mitigate his misconduct.  The applicant is likely to experience ongoing symptoms in times of stress since PTSD has been shown to be influenced by the trauma itself as well as current psychosocial stressors.  The psychiatrist also stated the applicant managed to recover from his drug and alcohol abuse by way of perseverance and he is currently a counselor himself, using his past experiences to empower others.  

16.  In an affidavit, dated 27 March 2015, the applicant stated, in effect:

	a.  He served in the U.S. Army from 1972 to 1974 and was first diagnosed with PTSD in the early 1990's.  The physician who diagnosed him is no longer practicing in South Carolina and he was unable to obtain his records from him.
	b.  He experienced physical and psychological abuse in 1972 as a trainee at Fort Jackson, SC.  He was struck in the jaw by a drill sergeant and was harassed on other occasions.  His father was a retired lieutenant colonel and he trusted and admired the military his entire life.  He had been beaten, mocked, and abused by those in authority.  His faith in the system had been completely eroded, he felt trapped, and he felt there was no way out for him.

	c.  He was devastated and these events took a drastic toll on him.  He began heavily abusing legal and illegal drugs when he reached his permanent duty station in Hawaii.  He was smoking a great deal of marijuana and using other drugs like lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) on a regular basis in an effort to escape what had become his reality.  

	d.  He believes that although it was undiagnosed, the PTSD had begun with the sergeant punching him in the face.  The drugs seemed to relieve the symptoms and he now realizes he was self-medicating the PTSD symptoms.  He was offered a discharge by his captain, but he declined by stating that he did not want to hurt his father.

	e.  He was AWOL in 1973 and he lived on an abandoned missile site for 
3 weeks before being caught by the Criminal Investigation Division, Shore Patrol, and the Honolulu Police Department.  As a result, he incurred drug and AWOL charges.  He was imprisoned at Schofield Barracks Stockade for 28 days before his court-martial.  While in the stockade, he was assaulted by a group of Hispanics and African Americans for an altercation he had with another inmate.  His injuries were not severe enough to warrant being taken to the hospital or treated.  During the assault, he was fearful that he might be seriously injured or killed.  After the assault, he remained constantly on guard and he lost his trust in his fellow Soldiers.  

	f.  He continued to use drugs and drinking alcohol heavily after being released from the stockade.  He stated that he used LSD on one occasion while he was in corrective custody.  He worked in his unit all day and no one noticed that he was under the influence.  He was sentenced to 6 months hard labor at the Retraining Brigade, Fort Riley.

	g.  He built up such a high distrust and resentment towards the military that he could not stand to wake up each day.  He experienced a great deal of racial violence at Fort Riley.  He was robbed one night and on another night, he had a drawer from a footlocker thrown down a flight of steps at him for no reason other than the fact that he was white.

	h.  He was reassigned to Fort McClellan, AL after serving his sentence at Fort Riley.  He never made friends at Fort McClellan because of his distrust of others that developed from his past experiences.  He continued to use drugs heavily in an effort to self-medicate.  He drove home every weekend and drank a lot of alcohol and did a lot of drugs.  At this point, he was having reccurring nightmares about how bad things were for him and about the things he saw happen in the stockade at both Schofield Barracks and Fort Riley.  He didn't think much about it at that time, but now he knows the dreams were manifestations of his PTSD.  

	i.  He went AWOL from Fort McClellan after about 9 months.  While he was AWOL, he missed going to Germany for Reforger.  He received another court martial and was again sentenced to confinement at Fort Riley.  While in the stockade at Fort McClellan, one night he was mistreated by the guards.  

	j.  He was driven to Fort Campbell by two MPs.  There were approximately 
12 Soldiers per cell.  He minded his business most of the time that he was in the stockade and this seemed to keep him safe.  This too was an extremely stressful time.  

	k.  He returned to Fort Riley and was a driver for a captain.  He worked at night, taking Soldiers to the hospital who had been injured in fights and gang fights in the barracks.  Working at night kept him away from trouble most of the time in the barracks.  He also drove Soldiers around to different places during the day.  He lived in constant fear that he would be assaulted again.  He completed this sentence.  The captain in his platoon changed his orders from Fort Lewis, WA to Fort Jackson, SC.  

	l.  His morale went to zero and he felt like this was going to be much the same as always.  He moved in with some of his civilian college friends in Columbia, SC and continued to use drugs and alcohol.  By this point, he hated the Army and hated every day the sun rose.  He totaled a 1973 Volkswagen Beetle while drunk and he was unconscious for about 6 hours.  He nearly died in that crash which added to his growing cycle of depression and misconduct, which was a symptom of his PTSD that can be traced back to his days in basic training.

	m.  He went AWOL again for the last time.  By this time, he had accumulated a great many Article 15s and several courts-martial actions.  He had been in the Correctional Custody Facility on several occasions.  He turned himself in from being AWOL and was confined to the barracks and extra duty while waiting for another court-martial.  At this point, he asked for a discharge.  He was told the only discharge that he could get was an UOTHC discharge.  
	n.  He was under the influence of hard narcotics, alcohol and marijuana at 21 years of age.  He decided that he did not care what type of discharge he received, he just wanted to get out.  He accepted the discharge in October 1974.  Twenty years later, he was diagnosed with PTSD, attention deficit disorder, and clinical depression as a result of his time in the Army.  He had been having bad dreams, waking up punching pillows and having cold and hot sweats for years.  He was treated with Depakote for a number of years.  He still has dreams today about being back in the Army and the stockade that are terrifying.  He is still distrustful of most people and his startle reflex is still extreme.  

	o.  He later learned from his psychiatrist and from a self-study that his military experience and misconduct demonstrates the text book symptoms of someone struggling with PTSD.  He exhibited recurrent dreams about being back in basic training and the military.  He experienced and witnessed events that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury or threat to the physical integrity of himself or others.  He had recurrent and intrusively distressing recollections of the physical and psychological abuse he suffered.  He made every effort he could to avoid thoughts, feelings or conversations associated with the physical and psychological abuse.  He has experienced many other PTSD symptoms.  At times, he dreads going to sleep because of the nightmares.

	p.  He has been embarrassed by his discharge.  He has been refused many good jobs over the past 40 years, because of the type of characterization of his discharge.  He believes if mental health treatment had been available to Soldiers then, he would have been treated and been able to have a productive and positive career in the Army.  

	q.  He is age 62.  For the past 28 years, he has been drug and alcohol free.  He earned an undergraduate degree in Counseling and Human Services and a Masters of Education degree in Counseling and Development.  He has been a substance abuse counselor and mental health counselor for over 20 years. 
 
	r.  He believes his misconduct that led to his discharge was caused and exacerbated by his PTSD, which had not been diagnosed at the time he was in the service.  

17.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  

   a.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, 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, at the time an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

   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.

18.  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." 

19.  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.

20.  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. 

21.  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.  

22.  In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and BCMs/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.

23.  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?

24.  Although 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 evidence of record confirms that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the applicant's rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

2.  The records further show he admitted he was guilty of being AWOL from 
30 July to 5 September 1973.  Additionally, the records show he voluntarily 

requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, to avoid a trial by court-martial.

3.  At the time of the applicant's 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.

4.  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.

5.  The applicant states that he was exposed to many traumatic stressors which caused him to turn to drugs and alcohol as a way to cope with the situation.  He has subsequently been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional.  Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that his PTSD condition existed at the time of discharge. 

6.  His disciplinary history shows he received four NJPs and he had 314 days of lost time.  It is concluded that PTSD was a causative factor of him being AWOL, which ultimately led to his discharge.  After carefully weighing the facts 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.

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 on 17 October 1974 to show the characterization of service as "General, Under Honorable Conditions."



      _______ _   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)                                         AR20150006896





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150006896



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1