IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 4 October 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009743 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 IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 4 October 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009743 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 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 4 October 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009743 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his under honorable conditions (general) discharge. 2. The applicant states his discharge was based on angry outbursts shortly after being prescribed medication for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) during his deployment to Operation Iraqi Freedom. He was given an Article 15 and discharged after having an altercation with another Soldier. He had recently been prescribed medications and this was not his normal behavior. He has been treated at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) since, and he has made progress as his medication is now well regulated. 3. The applicant provides: * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * VA summary of benefits and list of disabilities 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 U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 9 November 1999. He entered active duty for training (ADT) on 3 February 2000 and completed training for military occupational specialty 92G (Food Service Specialist). 3. He was honorably released from active duty on 14 June 2000 upon completion of his required service. His DD Form 214 shows he was transferred to his USAR unit, the 391st Engineer Battalion, Greenville, SC. 4. He was ordered to active duty in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom on 28 October 2004 and subsequently served in Iraq from 31 December 2004 to 5 August 2005. He was assigned to the 942nd Transportation Company. 5. The complete facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not available for review with this case. However, his records contain: a. Orders 320-0254, issued by Headquarters, XVIII Airborne Corps, Fort Bragg, NC, on 16 November 2005, ordering his reassignment to the U.S. Army Transition Center, Fort Bragg, for separation processing effective 16 November 2005 in accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations). b. DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged under honorable conditions (general) on 18 November 2005 under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct (commission of a serious offense). He completed a total of 1 year and 21 days of net active service this period. He was assigned separation code "JKQ" (Misconduct, commission of a serious offense). 6. On 18 April 2011, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) notified him that the ADRB had denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. 7. He provides his VA disability list and benefits summary. The Board forwarded the applicant's documentation to the Army Review Boards Agency clinical psychologist for review. The clinical psychologist rendered an advisory opinion on 29 August 2016. The psychologist stated: a. The applicant served on active duty from 28 October 2004 to 18 November 2005 in MOS 92G10. He received an under honorable conditions (general) discharge in accordance with AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12C, Misconduct­ Commission of a Serious Offense. He deployed from 21 December 2004 to 5 August 2005 in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. b. On 18 May 2015, he requested that the Board upgrade his discharge based on PTSD, claiming his general discharge was related to his mental health. His case was previously denied on 15 April 2011 after the ADRB determined that the discharge was proper and equitable and voted to deny relief based on a lack of evidence. c. The active duty electronic medical records revealed that following a physical altercation with a noncommissioned officer, he sought treatment and was diagnosed with major depression. He attributed symptoms of stress, anger, and depression to problems with work, supervisors, and possibly facing Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) charges for the physical altercation. Subsequently, he attempted to cut his wrist and overdose by taking a large amount of Clonazepam. He was hospitalized and medically evacuated to Germany and then Womack Army Medical Center where he was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with disturbance of emotions and conduct along with narcissistic personality traits. Medical records are void of a PTSD diagnosis and there is no indication that he experienced any traumatic events or exposure to a life-threatening situation during his time in service. In September 2005, he completed a mental status examination and was psychiatrically cleared for administrative separation. d. A VA letter, dated 18 May 2015, indicated that service connection for PTSD was granted and he was assigned a disability rating of 50 percent. There were no details regarding the basis for the PTSD diagnosis or documentation that he received continued treatment through the VA. e. The Army Review Boards Agency Clinical Psychologist was asked to determine if there is a nexus between the (PTSD) 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 ABCMR and records available in the DOD electronic medical record (AHLTA). Based on thorough review of available medical records, there is no evidence that the applicant met the criteria for PTSD during his military service. The presence of depression or a personality disorder during the time period of misconduct does not explain or directly mitigate his actions leading to a separation under chapter 14-12c of AR 635-200. His record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning events that could have contributed to a PTSD service-connected discharge from the Army. Without medical records or other service documents indicating exposure to trauma, an advisory opinion about him meeting the criteria for PTSD and whether or not this diagnosis mitigated his misconduct cannot be rendered. 8. The applicant was provided with a copy of this advisory opinion to give him an opportunity to submit a rebuttal and/or any additional comments. He did not respond. REFERENCES: 1. AR 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, commission of a serious offense (military or civilian 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 is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. 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. e. 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. 2. PTSD can occur after someone goes through a traumatic event like combat, assault, or disaster. Military Sexual Trauma and Stalking are stressors that could lead to PTSD. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) publishes the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) 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." 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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, 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. 6. 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. 7. 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 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? 8. 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 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: 1. The applicant’s record does not contain the complete facts and circumstances that led to his discharge. However, his record contains a DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged on 18 November 2005 under the provisions of chapter 14 of AR 635-200 for misconduct - commission of a serious offense, in the rank/grade of private/E-2 with an under honorable conditions characterization of service. 2. Absent evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that all requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. 3. The advising clinical psychologist found insufficient evidence upon which to render an opinion regarding whether or not PTSD was a mitigating factor in the misconduct that led to his discharge. 4. Based on the available evidence, it appears his service during the period ending 18 November 2005 did not meet the criteria for an honorable discharge. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150009743 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150009743 7 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2