BOARD DATE: 12 July 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150002259 BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING __x______ __x______ __x___ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 12 July 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150002259 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decisions of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20110010665 on 17 November 2011 and in Docket Number AR20120001857 on 10 July 2012. ___________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. BOARD DATE: 12 July 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150002259 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 reconsideration of the previous Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) decision as promulgated in Docket Number AR20110010665 on 17 November 2011. Specifically, he requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge and a change to the stated reason for his separation. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that his discharge should be upgraded because there is no evidence of misconduct in his official military personnel file (OMPF). He suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). He was diagnosed upon his return from Iraq and it is noted in his service records. 3. The applicant provides the following documents: * a self-authored statement * DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document – Armed Forces of the United States), dated 24 January 2003 * DD Form 1966 (Record of Military Processing – Armed Forces of the United States), dated 24 January 2003 * various allied enlistment documents * DD Form 2808 (Report of Medical Examination), undated * a memorandum for record (MFR) from a physical therapist with the 31st Combat Support Hospital, Sustainer Army Airfield, Iraq, dated 18 May 2004 * Aeromedical Evacuation Patient Record, dated 6 June 2004 * DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile), dated 2 July 2004 * Pre-Separation Counseling Checklist, dated 7 October 2004 * Orders 039-001, issued by U.S. Army Europe, Schweinfurt Transition Center on 8 February 2005 * Enlisted Record Brief, dated 8 February 2005 * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), for the period ending 11 February 2005 * VA Form 21-4138 (Statement in Support of Claim), dated 3 September 2008 * a VA personal hearing document, dated 6 February 2009 with supporting documents * ABCMR Docket Number AR20110010665, dated 17 November 2011 * DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), dated 26 January 2012 * extracts of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decisions, dated 10 December 2012 and 22 April 2013 * an extract of a VA award letter, dated 26 April 2013 * Social Security Administration – Retirement, Survivors and Disability Insurance – Notice of Award, dated 22 September 2013 * a letter from the VA, dated 22 October 2013 * approximately 120 pages of Army and VA medical documents CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records that were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR20110010665 on 17 November 2011 and in Docket Number AR20120001857 on 10 July 2012. 2. The applicant provides numerous Army and VA medical documents and various new VA decision documents that were not previously considered by the Board in his case. These documents constitute new evidence that now warrants consideration by the Board. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 March 2003. He completed his initial entry training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 91W (Health Care Specialist). The highest rank/grade he attained while serving on active duty was private first class (PFC)/E-3. 4. He served in Kuwait and Iraq from 2 February 2004 through 6 July 2004. 5. Orders 039-001, issued by United States Army Europe, Schweinfurt Transition Center on 8 February 2005 reassigned him from Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 1st Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment and assigned him to the Schweinfurt Transition Center for separation processing effective 11 February 2005. 6. His record is void of a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge process. However, his record contains a DD Form 214 that was authenticated by his signature, which identifies the authority and reason for his discharge. 7. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 11 February 2005, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. He was discharged in the rank/grade of private/E-1 and his service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions. He and completed 1 year, 11 months, and 8 days of net active service. 8. There is no evidence in the applicant's available record that indicates he was referred to the disability evaluation system (DES) or had an unfitting condition that required his referral to the DES. 9. There is no evidence in the applicant's available record that indicates he was diagnosed with, or treated for, PTSD during his period of military service. 10. The applicant’s case was considered by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) during a records review hearing on 9 June 2009 and at a personal appearance hearing with the applicant present on 24 June 2010. The ADRB, during both reviews, determined the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable, and it voted unanimously to deny the applicant’s request to change the characterization of and reason for his discharge. 11. The ABCMR denied his original requests for a discharge upgrade and separation reason change on 17 November 2011 and denied his request for reconsideration on 10 July 2012. In both cases, the Board determined he was properly discharged. 12. An advisory opinion was obtained on 13 November 2015 from the Integrated DES (IDES) Clinical Director, Headquarters, U.S. Army Medical Department Activity (MEDDAC), Fort Knox, Kentucky. This official noted that the review was conducted based on the documents the applicant provided, due to an incomplete service treatment record, and stated the following: a. The applicant was deployed to Iraq with his unit with "mild bilateral plantar fasciitis" per the clinical record. Also, per the record, this condition did worsen in Iraq, which is quite common given the rough terrain there. In Iraq, he was treated for this condition and was under the care of a physical therapist. Conservative treatment measures, however, failed to improve his condition, and he was subsequently evacuated from Iraq back to his unit in Schweinfurt, Germany for further treatment. b. In Schweinfurt, he received the usual treatment under the care of a Podiatrist and Physical Therapy. In the available treatment records, an undated note which was not marked with a treatment location, from a Podiatrist. Per the Podiatrist, "Bilateral Plantar Fasciitis, 85% improved." This condition was treated in the usual fashion with orthotics (shoe inserts). He was then subsequently discharged from the care of the Podiatry Clinic. c. The incomplete nature of this treatment note suggests tampering, but we have no evidence of such. Also, in the records provided, there are notes of witnesses observing him playing basketball, etc. This would support a charge of malingering. However, there are no signed or sworn statements by witnesses so stating, so this claim remains unsubstantiated. d. Regarding the claim of PTSD, there is absolutely no evidence of PTSD evaluation or treatment in the clinical records provided the review board by him. Also, no post-deployment health assessments (PDHA) or reassessments (PDHRA) were available for review. These documents could have substantiated a possible PTSD claim, if he had reported PTSD symptoms. e. The applicant's claim that he did not receive a separation medical examination was not accurate. The supplied records include a completed DD 2807-1 (Report of Medical History) and a DD 2808 (Report of Medical Examination). However, curiously, the DD 2808 was incomplete and unsigned. f. There is no justification for a "medical discharge" in this case. g. The applicant's plantar fasciitis had improved in Schweinfurt with treatment and had improved by "85%" per the clinical record. Very likely, this condition could have been managed with a mild permanent physical profile with a "2" restriction under the "L" for lower extremity. He could have easily deployed again with this restriction. h. As noted in the documents provided, there was no evidence that at the time of separation the Applicant was at the Medial Retention Determination Point (MRDP) for his foot condition, as stated in Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3, paragraph 7-4(b). Therefore, he was not eligible for entrance into the DES and a MEB (Medical Evaluation Board). Additionally, because he was pending court martial charges, he was administratively ineligible for the DES. i. There was no evidence in the clinical record provided of symptoms of, evaluation of, or treatment for PTSD. Therefore, the claim of PTSD was unsubstantiated (emphasis added). 13. The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion and responded on or about 13 December 2015. He stated that the following documents are his proof that he had service-connected injuries and there was no way possible that he could have been malingering: a. A one-page, undated document labeled "In The Appeal of (Applicant)" and assumed to be from the a VA Appeals Board, states for conclusions: * the criteria for service connection for in-service aggravation of bilateral pes planus have been met * for the period since 9 August 2008, the criteria for an initial 40 percent rating for a low back disability have been met * the criteria for an effective date earlier than 9 August 2008 for the award of service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis have not been met b. Two VA Rating Decision documents, dated on or about 27 October 2015, referencing an 11 April 2015 VA examination, determined his bilateral plantar fasciitis, which was currently 10 percent disabling, was increased to 50 percent. One document further stated his grant of service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis was denied by the Board of Veterans Appeals decision on 3 August 2015 [assumed to be the document reference in paragraph 13a above]; however, he still had an appeal right to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. 14. In the processing of this case, another advisory opinion was obtained on 8 June 2016 from the Chief, Behavioral Health Division, Office of The Surgeon General, Falls Church, Virginia. This official opined the following: a. This office was asked to determine if there is a nexus between the information/diagnoses contained in documentation and the misconduct that resulted in the applicant's discharge. This opinion is based on the information provided by the Board and records available in the DOD electronic medical record (AHLTA). b. The applicant's request is based on the premise that he should have been medically separated for his foot condition but was instead administratively separated for feigning this injury and other misconduct allegations for which he claims there is no documentation. c. In his application, he states: "Although I do suffer from PTSD in which I was diagnosed with upon my return from Iraq, which is noted in my service medical records and I am currently service connected for." While several references are made to an existing PTSD diagnosis, there is no record of a diagnostic assessment for the disorder (emphasis added). The only behavioral health (BH) diagnosis that is not by his own report was Psychological Stress Not Elsewhere Classified (V62.89) noted on a post deployment exam dated 1 November 2004. d. In December 2012, the VA granted him service connection for PTSD with an evaluation of 30%. e. With regard to a possible nexus between BH diagnoses and the misconduct that led to his separation, there is no evidence he was diagnosed with PTSD or any other BH disorder while in service. Nor are there VA records that confirm a PTSD diagnosis. 15. The applicant was provided a copy of the second advisory opinion and responded on or about 18 June 2016. He provided no written explanation but submitted the following documents: a. A VA medical document that lists his medical visits. He highlights his diagnosis for psychological stress not elsewhere classified as noted on a post deployment exam dated 1 November 2004. b. A two-page VA Regional Office, Cleveland, Ohio, "Administrative Decision" dated on or about 16 March 2009, determining his 11 February 2005 discharge is considered honorable for VA purposes. It further states that this determination was established by the applicant's own personal accounts of his service and records provided by the applicant. 16. The applicant provides: a. A VA Rating Decision, dated 10 December 2012, with an effective date of 8 May 2011, granting him a 30% disability rating for PTSD based on the VA's relaxed evidentiary standards for establishing in-service stressors and his statements of a claimed stressor and the fact he served in Kuwait and Iraq. b. DD Form 2249 dated 27 May 2004, cited a the medical condition of plantar fasciitis and provided the applicant a "T3" profile expiring on 27 June 2004, extended on 3 July 2004 to 31 July 2004. The treatment plan was to evaluate and treat with podiatry in country [Iraq]. c. AF Form 3899 (Aeromedical Evacuation Patient Record), dated on or about 5 July 2004, states the applicant was being treated for plantar fasciitis at the forward operating base (FOB) with little improvement but pain continued. Therefore, a determination was made to evacuate him to the rear [Schweinfurt, Germany] for more definitive evaluation and treatment. d. A VA personal hearing document, dated 6 February 2009 with supporting documents that shows the applicant attended a hearing on 25 February 2009 to establish his case for benefits. In the testimony the applicant stated he received an Article 15 [for unknown reasons], and he confirmed he received a Chapter 10 for feigning an injury, adultery, and other issues. e. VA Form 21-526 with a submission date of 9 August 2008, filing a claim for VA compensation for the following reasons: plantar fasciitis; lower back pain; and pes planus. It further stated he was given a separation physical in Schweinfurt, Germany on 3 February 2005. There was no claim or mention of a PTSD condition. f. Approximately 120 pages of Army and VA medical documents that shows medical conditions and treatments for plantar fasciitis, lower back pain, ankle pain and other ailments. It also contains Social Security Administration and VA disability decision documents. None of these documents show a treatment for or a diagnosis of PTSD. g. He also provides his enlistment contracts and supporting documents. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a provides an honorable discharge is given when the quality of the Soldier’s service has generally met standards of acceptable conduct and duty performance. b. Paragraph 3-7b states 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. c. Chapter 10 provides 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 at any time after the charges have been preferred. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 2. Army Regulation 40-501 governs medical fitness standards for enlistment; induction; appointment, including officer procurement programs; retention; and separation, including retirement. Once a determination of physical unfitness is made, the PEB rates all disabilities using the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). Ratings can range from 0% to 100%, rising in increments of 10%. 3. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Army physical disability evaluation system and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating. a. Paragraph 3-1 provides that the mere presence of impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability. In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the member reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office, rank, grade or rating. The Army must find that a service member is physically unfit to reasonably perform their duties and assign an appropriate disability rating before they can be medically retired or separated. b. Paragraph 3-5 provides that there is no legal requirement in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity to rate a physical condition which is not in itself considered disqualifying for military service when a Soldier is found unfit because of another condition that is disqualifying. Only the unfitting conditions or defects and those which contribute to unfitness will be considered in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity warranting retirement or separation for disability (emphasis added). c. Paragraph 4-1-3 states a member who is under investigation for or charged with an offense for which he could be dismissed or given a punitive discharge may not be referred for disability processing. It also states an enlisted Soldier may not be referred for, or continue, physical disability processing when action has been started under any regulatory provision which authorizes a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions (emphasis added). 4. The VASRD is used by the Army and the VA as part of the process of adjudicating disability claims. It is a guide for evaluating the severity of disabilities resulting from all types of diseases and injuries encountered as a result of, or incident to, military service. It contains a list of codes that correlate injuries or illnesses to percentage ratings that estimate the reduction in earning capacity resulting from the disability. The degree of severity is expressed as a percentage rating that determines the amount of monthly compensation. 5. 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." 6. 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. 7. 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 8. 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. 9. 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 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). 10. 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 (emphasis added)? * 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? 11. 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. 12. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) states that SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations which identify reasons for and types of separation from active duty. The SPD code of KFS is the correct code for Soldiers separating under AR 635-200, chapter 10 and "in lieu of trial by court-martial" is the corresponding entry for the narrative reason for separation. 13. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. Paragraph 2-9 contains guidance on the burden of proof. It states, in pertinent part, that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity, which is that what the Army did was correct. The ABCMR is not an investigative body and decides cases based on the evidence that is presented in the military records provided and the independent evidence submitted with the application. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant's request for an upgrade of his UOTHC discharge and a change to his separation reason was carefully considered. 2. The applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded because there is no evidence of misconduct in his OMPF. However, there is evidence, by his own admission in documents to the VA, that he had an Article 15, a charge of adultery, and other unmentioned misconduct. 3. The applicant's records are void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge. However, his DD Form 214, which is authenticated by his signature, shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and his service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions. Therefore, it appears he was charged with the commission of an offense(s) punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. Discharges under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. 4. The applicant is presumed to have voluntarily, willingly, and in writing, requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, he waived his opportunity to appear before a court-martial. It is also presumed that all requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. Further, it is presumed his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service during his enlistment. 5. There is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial and credible evidence to support a claim. He has provided no information that would indicate the contrary. 6. The applicant states he suffers from PTSD and insinuates that this factor should be taken into account. All medical documentation during his military service shows his medical condition as that of plantar fasciitis. His record is void of documentation that shows he was unable to perform the duties required of his grade and/or MOS. The applicant has failed to show, and the provided documentation fails to show, his condition at the time of his discharge was anything other than "fit for duty." 7. There is no evidence his medical condition at the time warranted his referral to the IDES process. Nor is there any evidence of an error or injustice in his separation processing. While the VA granted him service-connected disability for PTSD on 12 December 2012, nearly 8 years after his discharge, it was not based on a medical professional diagnosis but on his own testimony and the fact he served in Kuwait and Iraq. In addition, both medical advisory opinions confirm that there is no nexus between his BH diagnoses and the misconduct that led to his separation, nor is there a confirmed diagnosis of PTSD. 8. The rating action by the VA does not demonstrate an error or injustice on the part of the Army. The VA, which has neither the authority nor the responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service, awards disability ratings to veterans for conditions that it determines were incurred during military service and subsequently affect the individual's civilian employability. Furthermore, unlike the Army, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings. The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge, thus compensating the individual for loss of a career; while the VA may rate any service connected impairment, including those that are detected after discharge, in order to compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability. 9. His contentions were noted and considered; however, there is no evidence to show that the type of separation, narrative reason, and characterization of service he received were in error or unjust. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150002259 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150002259 16 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2