IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 23 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015437 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ____x___ ____x___ ___x____ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 23 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015437 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by correcting her DD Form 214, as follows: * deleting from item 12, block f, the current entry and adding the entry: "00 [Years], 04" [Months], 16 [Days]" * adding the following awards to item 13: * Army Commendation Medal * Southwest Asia Service Medal with 1 Bronze Service Star * Driver and Mechanic Badge with Driver-W Bar * Air Assault Badge * adding to item 14: "Air Assault School, 2 Weeks, September 1991" * adding to item 18 the entry: "Service in Southwest Asia from 19900901 –19910116" 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to upgrading his discharge to honorable or adding the Equipment Repair Parts Specialist Course, Field Sanitation Team Training, and any additional military occupational specialties or awards to his discharge document. ____________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: 23 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015437 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, upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge based on a post-service diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show additional military training, his foreign service, and all authorized awards. 2. The applicant states he enlisted in the U.S. Army, in part, to receive benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB). He served in support of Operation Desert Shield/Storm. His unit was positioned on the border of Iraq and Kuwait as a defensive line to prevent Iraqi soldiers from entering Saudi Arabia. There were frequent bombings and many of the battalion's vehicles were destroyed from improvised explosive devices (IED). He states that he feared for his life and saw Soldiers killed. All of this caused him a lot of mental health issues. a. When he returned to the continental United States, he noticed that his behavior had changed. He would get stressed-out and have outbursts of anger. He began drinking to calm his nerves and his drinking became excessive. He was twice cited for driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol. This led to problems at his unit with his superior noncommissioned officer (NCO), Staff Sergeant (SSG) VL, who would frequently use his position of authority to take advantage of him. b. The applicant was involved in an automobile accident while driving in Tennessee. He was fined and imprisoned for two days, which was mandatory for a DUI in Tennessee. He states he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for the same offense, which was double jeopardy. c. He was referred to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP). Prior to his problem with alcohol, he was always a prompt person, but he was late for ADAPCP appointments and classes a few times. This provided SSG VL with reasons for him "to come at me." The applicant adds that he was eventually declared an ADAPCP failure. d. He states that SSG VL was aware the applicant would not be eligible for the MGIB, if he did not complete his active duty service obligation. He also states that SSG VL processed his separation action as fast as he could and he was out of the Army within one month. He adds that all of his military training and awards he worked hard for were not recorded on his DD Form 214. e. He states that he received another DUI after he was separated from the U.S. Army. He then began to realize the level of his problem. He now drinks less alcohol and he does not drink and drive. He adds that the military taught him to be a strong person and he has learned from his mistakes. f. He states he has hearing loss and tinnitus. He also suffers from anxiety, paranoia, dizziness, sleeplessness, and loss of memory. He adds that he still drinks alcohol to help him with his PTSD and anxiety. 3. The applicant provides: * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States) * self-authored statement, dated 4 September 2015 (summarized above) * two Certificates of Training * DA Form 4980-18 (Army Achievement Medal (AAM) Certificate) * DA Form 4980-14 (Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM Certificate) * Army/American Council on Education – Registry Transcript * DD Form 214 * two Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) letters CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 August 1989 for a period of 3 years. 3. The applicant's DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Records), in pertinent part, shows in: * item 5 (Oversea Service) is blank (no entries) * item 9 (Awards, Decorations and Campaigns) – * Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle (M-16) Bar * Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Hand Grenade Bar * Army Service Ribbon * AAM * National Defense Service Medal * item 17 (Civilian Education and Military Schools) – Format: Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) Code/Title, Duration, Completion, Year) * MOS 76C, Equipment Repair Parts Specialist, 11 Weeks, No, 1990 * MOS 76Y, Unit Supply Specialist, 7 Weeks, Yes, 1990 * item 18 (Appointments and Reductions) – * promoted to specialist (SPC)/grade E-4, 23 October 1991 * reduced to private first class (PFC)/grade E-3, 30 April 1992 * item 35 (Record of Assignments) – Format: Effective Date, Duty MOS Code, Principal Duty, Organization) * 28 October 1989, 76C0O, Advanced Individual Training AIT), Company M, 266th Quartermaster (QM) Battalion, 23rd QM Brigade, Fort Lee, VA * 26 March 1990, 76Y0O, AIT, Company B, 266th QM Battalion, 23rd QM Brigade, Fort Lee, VA * 15 June 1990, 76Y1O, Supply Specialist, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment 4. Headquarters, U.S. Army Logistics Center, Fort Lee, VA, Orders 093-021, dated 3 April 1990, awarded the applicant MOS 76Y1O (Unit Supply Specialist), effective 16 May 1990 or upon course completion. 5. A DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) shows Headquarters, 1st Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment, Orders Number 90268-113, dated 25 September 1990, awarded the applicant the Army Achievement Medal for meritorious achievement during the period 1 August 1990 to 11 September 1990. 6. Orders issued by Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, KY, pertaining to the applicant, show: * Permanent Orders Number 070-011, dated 10 March 1992, awarded him the Driver and Mechanic Badge with Driver-W Bar for the period of service from 11 September 1990 through 7 April 1991 * Permanent Orders Number 266-001, dated 23 September 1991, awarded him the Air Assault Badge for the period of service 4 September 1991 through 18 September 1991 for successful completion of the standard Air Assault Course, Class Number 57-91 7. A DA Form 4126-R (Bar to Reenlistment Certificate), dated 25 November 1991, shows the company commander recommended the applicant be barred from reenlistment for being late to formations, details, and assigned duties; failing to follow orders in a timely manner; apathy/disinterest in training for his job; and demonstrating no potential for future service. It also shows the: * applicant declined to submit a statement in his own behalf * Commander, 1st Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment, approved the bar to reenlistment certificate on 27 November 1991 * applicant did not appeal the bar to reenlistment 8. A DA Form 4856 (General Counseling Form), dated 11 February 1992, shows SSG VL counseled the applicant following his conviction of DUI in Clarksville, TN. He informed him that he was enrolled in ADAPCP, Track II, on 10 February 1992. He also informed him of the mandatory scheduled appointments and classes that he was required to attend. 9. The applicant accepted summarized NJP for disobeying a direct order issued by the company commander (for all Soldiers) to be in the company area at 2300 hours on 14 March 1992. The punishment imposed was 7 days restriction and 7 days extra duty. 10. A DA Form 4856, dated 27 April 1992, shows SSG VL counseled the applicant on being suspected of being drunk while on duty on 23 April 1992. He also advised him of possible adverse consequences of such behavior and encouraged the applicant to abstain from alcohol. The applicant indicated, "I concur" and signed the counseling form. 11. The applicant accepted NJP for being drunk on duty at or about 0630 hours on 30 April 992. The punishment imposed was reduction to grade E-3, 14 days restriction, and 14 days extra duty. 12. In a memorandum, dated 6 May 1992, the Clinical Director, ADAPCP, confirmed the applicant was evaluated on 10 February 1992 for the severity of his alcohol abuse. He was assessed as having a problem and scheduled to attend weekly group counseling and DUI classes. He stated that the applicant failed to follow his treatment plan of abstaining from alcohol and he continued to exhibit some denial concerning his alcohol problem. He concluded that, due to the applicant's most recent charge of drunk on duty, it was doubtful the applicant was ready to make the changes necessary to prevent additional problems. 13. A DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 7 May 1992, shows the applicant was evaluated by the division psychologist. The applicant was found to be fully alert and oriented, his thinking process was clear, behavior and thought content normal, memory good, and mood or affect unremarkable. a. The applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings and that he was mentally responsible. The applicant met medical retention standards. b. The examining official requested a letter from ADAPCP due to the well documented history of alcohol abuse/misuse. With the exception of the alcohol problem, he cleared the applicant for any administrative or judicial action deemed appropriate by his command. 14. On 30 June 1992, the applicant's company commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 9 (Alcohol or Other Drug Abuse Rehabilitation Failure), based on his alcohol abuse and rehabilitative failure. a. The reasons for his proposed action were the applicant was arrested and found guilty of DUI. He was enrolled in ADAPCP and, while enrolled in the program, he was found drunk on duty. He also received NJP for being drunk on duty and for disobeying a lawful order. b. The applicant was advised of his rights and the separation procedures involved. The commander also informed him that he was recommending issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. 15. Following notification of the separation action, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and he was advised of the rights available to him. a. He was advised he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in the event a general, under honorable conditions characterization of service was issued to him. b. The applicant also acknowledged he understood that if he received a discharge/character of service that was less than honorable he could apply to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or the ABCMR for a review of his discharge. However, an act of consideration by either board did not imply that his discharge would be upgraded. c. He indicated that he would not submit any statements in his own behalf. d. The applicant and his counsel placed their signatures on the document. 16. The separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate. 17. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he entered active duty on 23 August 1989 and he was discharged on 15 July 1992 under honorable conditions (general). He had completed 2 years, 10 months, and 23 days of total active duty service. It also shows, in pertinent part, in: * item 11 (Primary Specialty): 76Y1O, Unit Supply Specialist, 2 years and 2 months * item 12 (Record of Service), block f (Foreign Service): 00 (Years), 00 (Months), 00 (Days) * item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) – * Army Service Ribbon * Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle (M-16) Bar * Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Hand Grenade Bar * National Defense Service Medal * AAM * item 14 (Military Education): Unit Supply Specialist, 7 Weeks, May 1990 * item 18 (Remarks), no entry that he deployed to a foreign country during this period of active service 18. A review of the applicant's military personnel records failed to reveal any evidence that he was recommended for or awarded the ARCOM. This review also failed to reveal he was awarded more than one AAM. 19. A further review failed to reveal any evidence that the applicant applied to the ADRB for review of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 20. In support of his application the applicant provides the following documents: a. DA Form 87 (Certificate of Training) showing he successfully completed Field Sanitation Team Training at Fort Campbell, KY, on 23 August 1990, an 8 hour course of instruction. b. DA Form 4980-18 shows Headquarters, 1st Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment, Orders Number 90268-113 (dated 25 September 1990) awarded him the AAM. This certificate was issued on 29 November 1990. c. DA Form 4980-14 shows Headquarters, 3rd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Orders Number 091-066, issued on 1 April 1991, awarded him the ARCOM for meritorious service during Operation Desert Shield/Storm from 1 September 1990 to 16 January 1991. d. Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Air Assault School, Certificate of Training, issued on 18 September 1991, shows he successfully completed Air Assault School, thereby earning the right and honor to wear the Air Assault Badge. e. Army/American Council on Education – Registry Transcript, dated 31 January 1992, shows, in pertinent part, he completed the Unit Supply Specialist Course during the period 26 March 1990 to 16 May 1990 and he held primary MOS 76C1O. f. A VA letter, dated 4 September 2015, shows he entered the U.S. Army on 23 August 1989 and he was discharged on 15 July 1992 under honorable conditions. It also shows he has one or more service-connected disabilities and his combined evaluation is 40 percent. g. A VA letter, dated 24 July 2015, shows his acquired psychiatric mood disorder claim was diagnosed as PTSD with anxiety and rated at 30 percent, effective 31 January 2014. It also shows a rating of 10 percent (for an unspecified condition) was assigned on 23 May 2013 and his combined rating was 40 percent, effective 31 January 2014. 21. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the medical staff, Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA), dated 7 February 2017. a. The ARBA staff psychiatrist's opinion is based on the information provided by the ABCMR and the applicant. The VA electronic record was also reviewed through the Joint Legacy Viewer. b. The staff psychiatrist noted the applicant reported that he saw dead bodies and endured IED blasts while deployed to Southwest Asia during Operation Desert Shield/Storm. He stated that he developed PTSD as a result of these stressors. He reported the following PTSD symptoms: increased anxiety, paranoia, insomnia, impaired memory, decreased stress tolerance, increased anger, and increased sensitivity. He stated he began drinking alcohol as a way to cope with his PTSD symptoms. c. She found the applicant's military records are void of any PTSD symptoms or diagnosis. She opined that the lack of documentation of PTSD symptoms in the applicant's military records does not necessarily indicate that the applicant did not have PTSD while in the military. In the era of the applicant's military service, PTSD was not a recognized diagnosis. Consequently, the diagnosis often has to be inferred from the available documentation and from behavioral indicators. Such is the situation in this case. (1) The applicant's military record indicates he received several awards and commendations during his deployment. (2) After returning from deployment, he began to drink heavily. Despite enrollment in ADAPCP, he continued to drink and was deemed a rehabilitation failure. (3) Such heavy drinking after a combat deployment is not unusual in Soldiers who are suffering from combat-related PTSD. Typically, these Soldiers are drinking heavily in an attempt to self-medicate their trauma symptoms. d. Based on the available documentation, the staff psychiatrist concluded the applicant had a mitigating Behavioral Health Condition (PTSD) while on active duty. Because PTSD can be associated with excessive use of alcohol to self-medicate PTSD symptoms, there is likely a nexus between the applicant's PTSD associated excessive alcohol consumption and the offense of being an alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure. 22. On 8 February 2017, the applicant was provided a copy of the ARBA advisory opinion to allow him the opportunity (10 days) to submit comments or a rebuttal. A response was not received from the applicant. REFERENCES: 1. 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." 2. 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. 3. 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, along with 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. 4. 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 (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. 5. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards 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. 6. 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? 7. Although 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. 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. 8. AR 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 9 provides for a discharge based on alcohol or other drug abuse (such as the illegal, wrongful, or improper use of any controlled substance, alcohol, or other drug) when the member is enrolled in an ADAPCP and the commander determines that further rehabilitation efforts are not practical, thereby rendering the member a rehabilitation failure. This determination will be made in consultation with the rehabilitation team. The service of a member discharged under this section will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions. 9. AR 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning military awards and decorations. The Southwest Asia Service Medal (SWASM) is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States serving in Southwest Asia who participated in Operation Desert Shield/Storm and served in Southwest Asia and contiguous waters or airspace there over, on or after 2 August 1990 to 30 November 1995. a. A bronze service star is authorized for wear with this service medal for participation in each credited campaign. b. Table B-1 contains a list of Southwest Asia Conflict campaigns and it shows that during the applicant's tour in Southwest Asia participation credit was awarded for the Defense of Saudi Arabia (2 August 1990 - 16 January 1991). 10. AR 635-5 (Personnel Separations – Separation Documents), in effect at the time of the applicant's separation from active duty, prescribed the separation documents that must be prepared for Soldiers on retirement, discharge, release from active duty service, or control of the Active Army. It also established standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214. Chapter 2 contains guidance on the preparation of the DD Form 214 and Table 2-1 (DD Form 214 – Preparation Instructions) contains item-by-item instructions for completing the DD Form 214. It shows for: a. item 11, enter the primary MOS and all additional MOS service for a period of one year or more, during the Soldier's continuous active military service. For each MOS, list the title with the years and months served. In determining time eligibility for listing of specialty, it states that 16 days or more count as a month; however, do not count basic combat training and AIT; b. item 12, use extreme care in completing this block since post-service benefits, final pay, retirement credit, etc. are based upon the information contained herein. Block f, enter the total amount of foreign service completed during the period covered in item 12, block c; c. item 13, list awards and decorations for all periods of service in the priority sequence specified in AR 600-8-22. Each entry will be verified by the Soldier's records; and d. item 14, list formal in-service (full-time attendance) training courses (40 hours or more) successfully completed during the period of service covered by title, length in weeks, and month and year completed. This information is to assist the Soldier after separation in job placement and counseling; therefore, training courses for combat skills will not be listed; and e. item 18, for an active duty Soldier deployed with his/her unit to a foreign country during their continuous period of active service enter: "SERVICE IN (NAME OF COUNTRY DEPLOYED) FROM (inclusive dates, for example YYYYMMDD-YYYYMMDD)." DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends that his general, under honorable conditions discharge should be upgraded based on a post-service diagnosis of PTSD and his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show additional military training, his foreign service, and all authorized awards. 2. On 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards and 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. An upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions offers the former Soldier eligibility for veterans' benefits. a. The applicant was not administratively discharged UOTHC; he was administrative discharged under honorable conditions. b. In that the applicant does not seek to upgrade a UOTHC administrative discharge, the Secretary of Defense's 3 September 2014 memorandum is not controlling in this case. 3. The evidence of record shows the applicant served in Southwest Asia during Operation Desert Shield/Storm from 1 September 1990 to 16 January 1991. He was discharged under honorable conditions due to his alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure on 15July 1992. a. The applicant was evaluated by a mental health professional prior to his separation based on his alcohol abuse and rehabilitation failure. He determined the applicant met medical retention standards. He cleared the applicant for any administrative or judicial action deemed appropriate by the command. b. The applicant was diagnosed with PTSD in 2014. c. The ARBA staff psychiatrist failed to find evidence that a diagnosis of PTSD or any other BH condition existed during the applicant's military service. Nevertheless, as PTSD was not recognized at the time of the applicant's service, she concluded that there is likely a nexus between the applicant's PTSD associated excessive alcohol consumption and the offense of being an alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure. 4. The applicant's administrative discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 9, based on alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. 5. During the period of service under review the applicant: * was convicted of DUI * was barred from reenlistment for – * being late to formations, details, and assigned duties * failing to follow orders in a timely manner * apathy/disinterest in training for his job * demonstrating no potential for future service * received NJP on two occasions for – * disobeying a direct order issued by his company commander * being drunk while on duty * was reduced from SPC (E-4) to PFC (E-3) * failed ADAPCP due to his alcohol abuse 6. Based on the foregoing, it is reasonable to conclude that the applicant's entire record of service, including his service in support of Operation Desert Shield/Storm, was considered by his chain of command when the separation authority directed the applicant's service be characterized as under honorable conditions. a. The ARBA staff psychiatrist opines there is a likely a nexus between the applicant's PTSD associated excessive alcohol consumption and his being declared an alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure. His alcohol consumption interfered with his duties and personal conduct which included a DUI, apathy/disinterest toward military duties, and disobeying orders. It is apparent alcohol impaired his ability to make rational decisions and to comply with military standards of discipline. b. Notwithstanding his alcohol dependence, it is clear the applicant's service did not met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel required for an honorable discharge. 7. The evidence of record shows the applicant served in Southwest Asia from 1 September 1990 to 16 January 1991. a. A calculation of this period of overseas service shows the following: 1991  01  16 date redeployed - 1990  09  01 date of deployment =  00  04  15 + _ 1 inclusive day =  00  04  16 overseas service during this period b. Item 12, block f, and item 18 of the applicant's DD Form 214 do not show his overseas service in support of Operation Desert Shield/Storm. 8. The evidence of record also shows: a. the applicant failed to complete the Equipment Repair Parts Specialist Course for award of MOS 76C; b. he completed the Unit Supply Specialist Course and orders awarded him MOS 76Y1O; c. he completed the 1-day (8 hours) Field Sanitation Team Training course on 23 August 1990, which is not authorized for entry on the DD Form 214 as it is less than 40 hours of instruction; d. orders awarded the applicant the ARCOM; e. orders awarded him the AAM for the period of service from 1 August 1990 to 11 September 1991 and there is no evidence of record showing he was awarded more than one AAM; f. the applicant qualified for award of the SWASM and he participated in one campaign during his service in support of Operation Desert Shield/Storm, thus he is authorized one bronze service star for wear on the SWASM; and g. permanent orders awarded him the – * Driver and Mechanic Badge with Driver-W Bar * Air Assault Badge //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150015437 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150015437 16 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2