IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	 23 June 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150008892


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, in effect, an upgrade of his discharge characterization, from under honorable conditions (general) to honorable. 

2.  The applicant states, in effect, his discharge was due to his cannabis use.  He has since been diagnosed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and given a 100% disability rating.  He served honorably throughout his career and now suffers from chronic PTSD due to his time in the service and deployment.  He requests an upgrade to honorable, based on the Secretary of Defense memorandum that was put out on the subject.  

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty); a Department of Veterans Affairs claim decision letter, dated 15 April 2014; and 2 support statements.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 December 1989.  He completed his initial entry training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 91B (Medical Specialist).  The highest rank/grade he attained during his period of active military service was sergeant (SGT)/E-5.

2.  Special Court-Martial Order Number 14, issued by Headquarters, United States Army Infantry Center and Fort Benning, Fort Benning, GA on 25 August 1998 shows he was convicted of wrongful use of marijuana between 18 February 1998 and 18 March 1998.  The sentence was adjudged on 18 June 1998 and he was sentenced to reduction to E-1, forfeiture of one months' pay, and confinement for 30 days.  

3.  He underwent a mental status evaluation on 3 September 1998 which showed he had normal behavior, being fully alert and oriented with no unremarkable mood or affect.  His thinking process was clear with normal thought content.  He was shown to be mentally responsible with no mental health problems requiring disposition through medical channels.  He was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command.  

4.  His immediate commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct – commission of a serious offense.  His immediate commander cited, as the reason for his proposed action, the wrongful use of marijuana, between on or about 18 February 1998 and on or about 18 March 1998.  He recommended the applicant receive an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.  

5.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation notification memorandum on 9 September 1998.  After consulting with counsel, he requested representation by counsel, personal appearance before and consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, and he did not elect to provide statements in his own behalf.  He acknowledged that he may encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by a general discharge and could make an application to this Board for a possible upgrade or change in his discharge.

6.  On 7 October 1998, the applicant appeared before an administrative separation board at Fort Benning, GA.  The board heard his testimony and found he committed a serious offense recognized under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c; specifically, the wrongful use of marijuana.  He was found undesirable for further retention for military service and their recommended was that he be separated with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. 

7.  His commander recommended action on 15 October 1998 to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct – commission of a serious offense.  

8.  In his endorsement of the separation memorandum, his battalion commander recommended he be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation       635-200, chapter 14, and he receive an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.    

9.  The approval authority approved the recommendation for his discharge on 15 October 1998, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, and directed he receive an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. 

10.  Accordingly, he was discharged on 26 October 1998.  The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he was discharged under provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct, and he received an under honorable conditions (general) characterization of service.  He completed 8 years,             10 months, and 1 day of net active service.  His DD Form 214 shows the following:

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

* Army Achievement Medal (2nd Award)
* Army Good Conduct Medal (2nd Award)
* Southwest Asia Service Medal with 1 Bronze Star
* Humanitarian Service Medal (2nd Award)
* Noncommissioned Officer's Professional Development Ribbon
* Army Service Ribbon
* Overseas Service Ribbon (2nd Award)
* Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar
* Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar
* Combat Medical Badge (2nd Award)

* Block 18 (Remarks):  "Service in Southwest Asia  19900828-19910323"

11.  His military records are void of any documentation that shows he suffered from, sought medical treatment for, or was diagnosed with, PTSD or any other medical issue or mental condition during his period of active military service.  

12.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge.  On 20 July 2012, the ADRB determined that his discharge was both proper and equitable and denied his request for an upgrade. 

13.  The applicant provides:

     a.  A VA decision letter, dated 15 April 2014, for the claim he filed on            27 November 2013.  The VA granted an entitlement increase to 100% effective 27 March 2012.   The following service-connected conditions noted were PTSD with recurrent major depressive disorder, cannabis dependence, and alcohol dependence in early full remission. 

     b.  A letter of support from Mr. M.H., a retired U.S. Army sergeant first class who has known the applicant since May 1992.  They were stationed at Fort Clayton in Panama together.  He states the applicant was a very good Soldier and is a dual citizen of the United States and Panama.  He is fluent in Spanish and was used as a liaison for many details and taskings requiring his linguist skills.  

     c.  A letter of support from Mr. D.B., a retired U.S. Army sergeant first class who has known the applicant for many years.  They were stationed at Fort Clayton in Panama together.  He states the applicant was a good Soldier during a turbulent time in Panama.  He states they were tasked to conduct activities in and around Panama as a result of migrant camp riots that occurred there and it was a very stressful time.  He speaks of the applicant dealing with personal issues and adversity, but did not say what those were.         

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

	a.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions (a pattern of misconduct consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions), a pattern of misconduct (consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline), commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.  However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7a states 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.
	
15.  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." 

16.  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.

17.  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. 

18.  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 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.  

19.  In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) 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 applicant's service (emphasis added).

20.  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?

21.  Although the DOD acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged UOTHC may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge, it is presumed that they were properly discharged based upon the evidence that was available at the time.  Conditions documented in the record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which PTSD or PTSD-related conditions may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge; those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the UOTHC characterization of service (emphasis added).  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 (emphasis added).  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 under honorable conditions characterization of service discharge to an honorable conditions discharge was carefully considered.  

2.  His contention that he was diagnosed with PTSD has been noted; however, his military record was void of such documentation.  He does provide a VA claim decision letter, dated 15 April 2015, that awarded him 100% service-connected disabilities, and PTSD was one of the medical diagnosis that was listed.  Therefore, it can be surmised that he was diagnosis with PTSD by the VA after he left the service.  However, he did not mention his PTSD when he applied to the ADRB for an upgrade in 2012.    

3.  Regardless, a post-service PTSD diagnosis, by itself, is not sufficient to prove an error or injustice in his separation processing as it occurred.  Additionally, the SECDEF directive he alludes to in his application applies to cases involving veterans who received a UOTHC discharge.  The applicant did not receive a UOTHC discharge; therefore, the cited SECDEF directive does not apply in this case.

4.  The evidence of record shows his separation processing for misconduct was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulations.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  The type of discharge directed and the narrative reason for his separation therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

5.  By violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, he compromised the special trust and confidence placed in him as a noncommissioned officer and had the duty to support and abide by the Army's drug policies and knowingly risked his military career.  This misconduct clearly diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.

6.  An honorable character of service is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel and an under honorable conditions character of service is appropriate for those Soldiers whose military record is satisfactory, but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  

7.  The applicant's military service was marked by a serious incident involving misconduct.  His contention that his diagnosis PTSD was the cause of his misconduct and should be upgraded based on the SECDEF directive is without merit.  Therefore, his overall record of service did not support the issuance of a fully honorable discharge by the separation authority at the time and it does not support an upgrade of his discharge now.

8.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant an upgrade of his discharge.

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)                                         AR20150000002



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150008892



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1