BOARD DATE:	  30 June 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150007036 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests his general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge.  He also requests his first name on his 
DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) with a separation dated of 28 February 1984 be corrected to "Troy."

2.  The applicant states his first name on his DD Form 214 should be “Troy” instead of “Tory”.

3.  He states after Urgent Fury Grenada combat, in which he volunteered to stay, upon returning to Fort Bragg his military career went down the drain.  He could not focus.  It was his goal to serve his life in the military as did his grandfather, his father, and his brothers.  He now knows that he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

4.  The applicant provides:

* DD Form 214
* DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214), dated 17 May 1994
* a Review PTSD Disability Benefits Questionnaire, dated 10 April 2012
* a Hypertension Disability Benefits Questionnaire, dated 24 April 2010
* a letter, dated 28 January 2013, from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Atlanta Region Office, Decatur, GA
* a letter, dated 30 March 2015, from the VA, Salt Lake City, UT
* 2 pages from his service medical records
* a list of Federal Insurance and Compensation Act (FICA) earnings from 1985 - 2011
* 3 requests for records 

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.  A DD Form 215, dated 17 May 1994, corrected his first name to Troy on his DD Form 214 with a separation date of 28 February 1984.  Because his first name has already been corrected, this issue will not be discussed further in these proceedings.

3.  On 9 September 1981, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  On 
9 September 1981, he was promoted to private first class (PFC)/pay grade E-3.  On 25 March 1982, he was assigned to Company A, 407th Supply and Service Battalion, 82nd airborne Division.  

4.  On 28 June 1983, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for:

* failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty
* willfully disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer (NCO) to get a haircut

His punishment included a reduction to private/pay grade E-2.

5.  On 19 December 1983, he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious achievement in connection with military operations against a hostile force in the country of Grenada during the period 25 October to 4 November 1983.  On 1 January 1984, he was promoted to PFC.

6.  On 25 January 1984, the applicant's commander notified his that he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) for unsatisfactory performance.  Specific reasons for his recommendation were the applicant's chronic display of substandard duty performance, military bearing, and commitment to duty.

7.  The commander advised the applicant of his right to: 

* consult with a consulting counsel
* submit statements in his own behalf
* be represented by counsel or to waive any of these rights
* withdraw any waiver of these rights at any time prior to the date the discharge authority directed or approved his discharge

8.  On 3 February 1984, he was given a mental status evaluation.  The examiner found he met the physical retention standards prescribed in Army 
Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness).  The examiner further determined he was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, able to adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings.  He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed necessary by his command.

9.  On 5 February 1984, the applicant, after having been advised by counsel, submitted a statement acknowledging that he had been advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  The applicant indicated that he was submitting a statement in his own behalf.  The applicant further acknowledged that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge was issued to him.

10.  In his undated statement the applicant stated he did not think he should be chaptered out of the service.  He tried to put all of his efforts in learning more about his job.  He could also teach others about his job and why it was important. He liked the Army and wanted to make a career of the Army.  He planned to join the Army two years after his discharge.  He wanted to at least be allowed to finish his 3-year enlistment, having only 8 months left on his enlistment.

11.  On 6 February 1984, the applicant's commander recommended he be eliminated from the U.S. Army under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200.  He showed the applicant had been counseled on 23 occasions from 24 November 1982 to 16 January 1984 by his chain of command for misconduct, being out of uniform, missing formation, debts, failure to follow instructions, disrespect, room inspection, and failure to repair.  He received NJP on 28 June 1983 for being absent from his appointed place of duty and failing to obey an order from an NCO.  Sixteen of these counseling sessions occurred prior to his time spent in Grenada.  The applicant did not respond to corrective action.  The commander requested waiver of rehabilitative transfer of the applicant.  His duty performance had been far below standards and totally unacceptable.  A rehabilitative transfer would not serve to clear up his problems and would not be in the best interest of the Soldier or the Army.

12.  On 6 February 1984, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's discharge for unsatisfactory performance, approved waiver of rehabilitative transfer, and directed the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

13.  On 28 February 1984, he was discharged by reason of unsatisfactory performance.  He completed 2 years, 5 months, and 20 days of active service that was characterized as under honorable conditions (general).

14.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade his discharge.  On 25 November 1987, the ADRB reviewed and denied the applicant's request for an upgrade.  The ADRB determined that the applicant's discharge was proper and equitable and the discharge was properly characterized as under honorable conditions.

15.  The PTSD Disability Benefits Questionnaire and letter, dated 28 January 2013, from the VA show the applicant has been diagnosed with PTSD and is receiving disability compensation from the VA with a disability rating of 
70 percent.

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

	a.  Chapter 13 provided for separation of individuals due to unsatisfactory performance when, in the commander's judgment:

* the individual would not become a satisfactory Soldier
* retention would have an adverse impact on military discipline, good 	order, and morale
* the service member would be a disruptive influence in the future
* the basis for separation would continue or recur
* the ability of the Soldier to perform effectively in the future, including 	potential for advancement or leadership was unlikely

	b.  Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance was characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.
	c.  An honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitled the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would have been clearly inappropriate.  

17.  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." 

18.  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.

19.  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. 

20.  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.  

21.  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.

22.  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?

23.  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 under other than honorable conditions characterization of service.  Corrections Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat-related PTSD or PTSD-related conditions as a causative factor in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct.  PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct.  Corrections Boards will also exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for an upgrade of his general discharge under honorable conditions was carefully considered.

2.  The medical community and DOD now have a more thorough understanding of PTSD and its potential to serve as a causative factor in a Soldier's misconduct when the condition is not diagnosed and treated in a timely fashion.

3.  Soldiers who suffered from PTSD and were separated solely for misconduct with an under other honorable conditions discharge subsequent to a traumatic event warrant careful consideration for the possible recharacterization of their overall service.

4.  Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance was characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.  The evidence shows the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with regulations in effect at the time.  The general discharge under honorable conditions directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  The records contain no indication of procedural or other errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.

5.  He repeatedly failed to attain and maintain the standards required of a Soldier in his unit.  His conduct and performance of duty were such that his chain of command spent an inordinate amount of time dealing with him and his problems. He accepted NJP on one occasion.  He was counseled on 16 occasions prior to his service in Grenada and on seven occasions after his return from Grenada.  He clearly had not met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____X____  __X______  ___X__  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.



      _______ _   X_______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150007036



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150007036



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1