DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ARMY REVIEW BOARDS AGENCY 251 18TH STREET SOUTH, SUITE 385 ARLINGTON, VA 22202·3531 SAMR-RB 27 April 2017 MEMORANDUM FOR Case Management Division, US Army Review Boards Agency, 251 18th Street South, Suite 385, Arlington, VA 22202-3531 SUBJECT: Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings for AR20150017912 1. Reference the attached Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings, dated 18 April 2017, in which the Board members unanimously recommended denial of the applicant's request. 2. I have reviewed the findings, conclusions, and Board member recommendations. I find there is sufficient evidence to grant relief. Therefore, under the authority of Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, I direct that all Department of the Army Records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing the applicant a DD Form 214 showing his characterization of service as "honorable." 3. Request necessary administrative action be taken to effect the correction of records as indicated no later than 28 August 2017. Further, request that the individual concerned and counsel, if any, as well as any Members of Congress who have shown interest be advised of the correction and that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records be furnished a copy of the correspondence. BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: Encl . Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) CF: ( ) OMPF Printed on$ Recycied Paper BOARD DATE: 18 April 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150017912 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: 18 April 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150017912 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. BOARD DATE: 18 April 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150017912 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests his under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states: * while in the Army he was an exemplary Soldier and citizen * he put others before himself as seen by his letters of appreciation for his actions in an automobile accident * while in the Army he was subjected to various stressful incidents that resulted in service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) * the PTSD, along with his gunshot wound, severely affected his ability to perform his duties in a satisfactory manner or to Army standards 3. The applicant provides: * letter of gratitude from the County of San Mateo, CA, dated 20 January 1981 * letter of appreciation from the Commander, 170th Military Police (MP) Company, Presidio of San Francisco, CA, dated 27 January 1981 * self-authored letter addressed to the Commander, 170th MP Company, dated 20 February 1981 * letter from his Member of Congress addressed to the Department of the Army, Chief, Legislative Liaison, dated 23 February 1981 * DA Form 268 (Report for Suspension of Favorable Personnel Action), dated 21 April 1981 * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decision document (pages 1 and 2), dated 14 October 2015 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. A Standard Form 93 (Report of Medical History) and a Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination), both dated 1 May 1979, shows the applicant underwent an entrance medical examination, wherein he was found to be in good health with no medical conditions noted. These forms show he was qualified for entrance into the Army. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 July 1979. He completed his initial entry training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 95B (Military Policeman). After initial training, he was assigned to the 170th MP Company, Presidio of San Francisco, CA. 4. A Standard Form 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care), dated 17 June 1980, shows that when he was putting his .45 caliber pistol in the holster, it went off and he shot himself in the right thigh with no compromise or bone involvement. A medical form, dated 11 June 1980, states he was hospitalized for 6 days and the gunshot wound was healing well. 5. A DA Form 3349 (Medical Condition – Physical Profile Record), dated 24 June 1980, shows he was given a temporary (T-3) profile for 60 days (until 24 August 1980), with limitations of no strenuous activity and he was medically qualified for limited duty. 6. Item 21 (Time Lost (Title 10, U.S. Code, section 972)) of his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II), shows he was absent without leave (AWOL) from 4 to 10 August 1980, a period of 7 days. 7. A Standard Form 600, dated 27 August 1980, shows the applicant was evaluated after he fell out of his jeep around 1800 hours during a field training exercise and rolled downhill for approximately 50 feet. He complained of right lower back pain. His x-rays were negative and he was given quarters for 24 hours with instructions to apply heat to the area for 6 hours. 8. A Standard Form 600, dated 18 November 1980, shows the applicant was evaluated by the physical medicine and rehabilitation service and he stated he was experiencing pain in his back and leg. He was having frequent nightmares about being killed from the jeep and gunshot incidents; as a result, he was having disciplinary problems in his unit. The applicant desired an evaluation by a medical board for the above problems. The attending physician's plan was to refer him to orthopedics and psychiatry and renew his profile until he was seen by orthopedics. 9. The applicant's record contains numerous DA Forms 3349 dated between 4 September and 18 November 1980, all temporary in nature, limiting him to no physical training, jumping, marching or guard duty as a result of his lumbar strain (lower back) and his gunshot wound was listed as stable. All profiles classified his duty status as "medically qualified." 10. A FORSCOM Form 139-R (Statement of Counseling), dated 5 November 1980, shows the applicant was counseled by his unit first sergeant (1SG) for his inability to perform MP duties as a result of his profile (i.e., self-inflicted gunshot wound and a fall from a military vehicle), and his refusal to perform even menial duties and to do any work other than non-physical charge of quarters (CQ) type duties. The applicant stated: "I feel that the US Army owes me disability and is responsible for my present medical condition and until a decision is made on my behalf for Medical Separation, I feel I should not be required to perform labor type duties." The applicant signed and dated the form 6 May 1981. The summary and recommendation was to give him time to resolve his profile-related problems. 11. A Standard Form 513 (Consultation Sheet), dated 18 November 1980, shows the applicant was evaluated by the Psychiatry Clinic for frequent nightmares and fear of using weapons. He desired evaluation by a medical board. It stated the following: a. He was well until a .45 caliber pistol discharged accidentally and hit his leg in June 1980, which was followed by fear and anxiety around weapons and his refusal to handle them. He had gained weight, experienced irritability, and nightmares, and he had conflicts with his supervisors. He was given an Article 15 for disobeying an order and was reduced in rank. b. In August 1980, he hurt his back from an accident, after which he had persistent back pain. He was being treated by physical medicine and rehabilitation. He was felt to be fit for duty; he was not recommended for, or referred to, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). 12. A Standard Form 513, dated 9 December 1980, shows the applicant was evaluated by the Orthopedics Clinic for desiring an evaluation for a medical board. The form reiterates his history of a gunshot wound and lower back pain. It further states there was no indication an MEB was needed at the time. 13. A Standard Form 600, dated 6 February 1981, shows the applicant underwent an orthopedic clinic evaluation for possible referral for an MEB. This form reiterated his concern about his unwillingness to carry a weapon. Orthopedics indicated that no MEB was warranted on orthopedics grounds and he was fit for duty. 14. A FORSCOM Form 139-R, dated 10 March 1981, shows the applicant was counseled by his unit 1SG for his refusal to perform duties as a staff duty noncommissioned (NCO) runner and his insistence that he would not perform the duties until he was given a lawful order by the 1SG. The applicant stated: "The duties of Staff Duty NCO runner requires cleaning up and buffing the offices and hallway. I feel this is in violation of my profile." The applicant signed and dated the form on 6 May 1981. The summary and recommendation was to review his profile to determine suitability for further service. 15. A FORSCOM Form 139-R, dated 2 April 1981, shows the applicant was counseled by his unit 1SG for his recent allegation that he was being denied promotion. He had not been able to obtain a medical disability discharge, and he could not or would not touch weapons. He stated he could not perform menial tasks. His profile was valid but only had certain limitations. The applicant stated: "Request that I receive a discharge that will allow me to collect for my service related injuries and I will gladly separate from the service." The applicant signed and dated the form on 6 May 1981. The summary and recommendation was that he be discharged in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, and that he be administered a complete physical examination prior to separation to determine if disability was warranted. 16. On 21 April 1981, the applicant was informed by his commander that action was being initiated to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph  5-31h, under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) with a under honorable conditions (general) discharge. a. His commander cited the reasons for the proposed separation action were the applicant's poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, his inability to adapt socially or emotionally, and his failure to demonstrate promotion potential. b. The commander informed him that the issuance of a less than honorable discharge could preclude his eligibility for many or all veteran's benefits and he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life. c. The commander informed him that he had the right to decline this type of discharge, in which he could be processed for separation under other provisions of law or regulation. 17. On the same date, the applicant acknowledged notification of his proposed separation from the Army. He indicated he voluntarily consented to the separation and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf (emphasis added). 18. A Standard Form 93 and a Standard Form 88, both dated 23 April 1981, shows he was provided a separation physical and he denied all psychiatric symptoms except for frequent trouble sleeping. 19. A DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 24 April 1981, shows his behavior to be normal, with clear thinking process and normal thought content, fully oriented, and unremarkable mood or affect. He was found to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings deemed appropriate, and he met the retention requirements of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3. 20. A Standard Form 513, dated 24 April 1981, shows he was evaluated by the Orthopedics Clinic, for separation under the provisions of chapter 5, at which time he complained of right thigh pain and lower back pain. It was noted that his gunshot wound was well healed, no sensory changes, and x-rays were negative. The determination was he was fit for duty or separation, as deemed necessary by the chain of command. 21. On 14 May 1981, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) and directed the issuance of a DD Form 257A (General Discharge Certificate). Due to his military records and past duty performance, he was not transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve. 22. On 18 May 1981, he was discharged accordingly. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31h (2), under the EDP, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention. His DD Form 214 confirms his service was characterized as under honorable (general) conditions. He was discharged in the rank/grade of private (PV1)/E-1 and completed 1 year, 10 months, and 6 days of net active service. 23. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. On 24 August 1982, the ADRB determined that his discharge was both proper and equitable and denied his request for an upgrade. 24. The applicant provides: a. A letter from the County of San Mateo, San Francisco, CA to the applicant, dated 20 January 1981, expressing gratitude for eye-witnessing an accident and testifying in court and extending help and aid to the victims at the scene. A "Letter of Appreciation" from his Battalion Commander, dated 27 January 1981, congratulating him and expressing appreciation for his actions in regards to the accident. b. A self-authored letter addressed to the Commander, 170th MP Company, dated 20 February 1981, where he stated the following: I'm submitting this letter in reference to a medical discharge. It was brought to my attention by Army Regulation 635-40, chapter 4, paragraph 7, section II, that a commander can submit paperwork to refer a member for medical evaluation. I wish to receive a discharge under honorable conditions as my injuries have caused me disciplinary problems, also a lack of schooling and not being promoted have defeated my purpose for being in the Army. Continued pain from my injuries have restricted me to certain duties which fail to educate me further in my military occupational specialty. c. A letter from his Member of Congress addressed to the Department of the Army, Chief, Legislative Liaison, dated 23 February 1981. The letter asks for assistance in reviewing the applicant's case for an evaluation by a medical board in order to receive a medical discharge in order to obtain medical and educational benefits. d. A DA Form 268, dated 21 April 1981, shows the applicant was pending a chapter 5 (EDP) discharge; therefore, suspension of favorable personnel actions was initiated. e. A VA decision document (pages 1 and 2), dated 14 October 2015, shows he was granted a 30 percent disability rating for the diagnosis of "PTSD with unspecified depressive disorder and alcohol use disorder, in sustained remission" effective 29 April 2013. 25. In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained on 2 November 2016 from the Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) Clinical Psychiatrist. The advisory opinion states: a. The applicant entered active duty on 6 July 1979 in MOS 95B. On 18 May 1981, he was discharged from active duty in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-31 (EDP), for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention with a general discharge. In the commander's recommendation for a general discharge, the applicant was noted to have 1) a poor attitude, 2) a lack of motivation, 3) a lack of self-discipline, 4) inability to adapt, 5) failure to demonstrate promotion potential. b. He is requesting that the ABCMR upgrade his discharge based on the development of PTSD while on active duty; because he believes PTSD accounts for the misconduct which led to his discharge. c. The following documentation was reviewed: the applicant's current ABCMR application, VA medical documentation, the applicant's military medical and personnel records. The military electronic medical record was not reviewed as it was not in use during the applicant's time in service. d. A review of the VA documentation indicates that the applicant has been found 30% service connected for PTSD by the VA. e. A review of the applicant's military records indicate he accidentally shot himself in the right thigh on 17 June 1980 and he was hospitalized for 6 days. Shortly thereafter, on 26 August 1980, the applicant had a jeep accident in which he fell out of a moving jeep [sic] and rolled down a hill, straining his lower back. After the injury to his thigh, the applicant received a T3 profile. After receiving the profile, his military records indicate he refused to do any physical labor that he felt might interfere with his profile. According to his commander's statement, the applicant felt he should be given a disability by the Army and he refused to perform labor type duties until a decision about his MEB request was made. f. He was seen by Psychiatry on 18 November 1980. In this evaluation, the applicant reported that since his gunshot wound and jeep accident, he was having the following symptoms: anxiety, irritability, nightmares about being killed with a gun or in a car accident and increased conflicts with his superiors (he had received an Article 15 for disobeying an order). The psychiatrist documented that the applicant stated his command thought he was a malingerer. The psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant with adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features and simple phobia (fear of using a weapon). He was felt to be fit for duty and was not referred for a MEB by psychiatry (emphasis added). g. He was seen by Orthopedics on 6 February 1981 to be evaluated for a possible referral for an MEB. Orthopedics stated that no MEB was indicated and the applicant fit for duty. He was seen again by orthopedics on 24 April 1981 at which time he complained of right thigh pain and lower back pain. Once again, orthopedics deemed he was fit for duty or separation. h. Standard Form 93 (Report of Medical History), dated 1 May 1979, the applicant denied all psychiatric symptoms. In his separation Standard Form 93, dated 23 April 1980, the applicant denied all psychiatric symptoms except for frequent trouble sleeping. DA Form 3822-R, dated 24 April 1981, shows the applicant was noted to have a normal mental status examination. He was found to have the mental capacity to participate in proceedings. He was noted to meet medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3. i. A review of his military medical and personnel records indicate he exhibited some signs of PTSD while on active duty: anxiety, depression, avoidance (refused to use a weapon) and nightmares. He was not diagnosed with PTSD but rather with adjustment disorder and simple phobia. This lack of a PTSD diagnosis does not mean he did not have PTSD. It was not uncommon for PTSD to go unrecognized during the applicant's era of service. j. In conclusion, it is reasonable that the applicant suffers from PTSD due to his experiences of being shot and being in a jeep incident while in the military. The applicant's diagnosis of PTSD is considered mitigating for the misconduct which resulted in his discharge from the military. There is likely a nexus between the applicant's PTSD and the reason for his failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention. 26. The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion on or about 2 November 2016 to afford him the opportunity to respond to its content. He did not respond. REFERENCES: 1. 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. It is not an investigative agency. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. 2. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. 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. b. Chapter 5 provided for the EDP. The pertinent paragraph in chapter 5 provided that members who had completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of continuous active service on their first enlistment and who had demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential could be discharged under the EDP. It provided for the expeditious elimination of substandard, nonproductive Soldiers before board or punitive action became necessary. Soldiers had to consent to separation under this program in order for commanders to separate them under the provisions of the EDP. Otherwise, a commander was required to separate Soldiers under other provisions of the regulation, which in most cases resulted in an UOTHC discharge. Individuals discharged under this provision of the regulation were issued either a general or honorable discharge (emphasis added). 3. 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." 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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 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 (emphasis added). 8. 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? 9. 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. 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 request for an upgrade of his under honorable conditions (general) discharge was carefully considered. 2. The applicant's record of service shows that he displayed a poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, an inability to adapt socially or emotionally, and a failure to demonstrate promotion potential. Based on the applicant’s overall record, his service does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance for Army personnel. Therefore, his immediate commander initiated separation actions against him. 3. The available evidence shows the applicant voluntarily consented to discharge under the EDP. There is no indication his consent was made under coercion or duress. His separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. The type of discharge directed and the reason for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. 4. The applicant contends he was an exemplary Soldier and put others before himself and was subjected to various stressful incidents, i.e., falling out of a vehicle and a self-inflicted gunshot wound, which severely affected his ability to perform his duties to standards that eventually resulted in him having PTSD. 5. He was medically evaluated by the Psychiatry and Orthopedic clinics on numerous occasions during his recovery period and military service. There is no evidence in his available records to show that he was deemed unfit for military service by reason of a medical disability. He constantly asked for his medical conditions to be evaluated by a medical board. As a sign of compassion, his chain of command, sent him for a physical evaluation, while considering the EDP, to rule out any medical condition that would have deemed him unfit prior to separation. He was deemed fit for military service or for appropriate separation proceeding. 6. The Secretary of Defense directed the Service BCMRs 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 (UOTHC) and who have been diagnosed with PTSD. 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. It also states PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. 7. The applicant was diagnosed with PTSD in April 2013. However, the applicant displayed an inability to adjust to rehabilitation and his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct or performance of duty for Army personnel, as evidenced by his counseling statements for his repeated refusal to obey orders and perform duties even within the limitations of his profiles; a 7-day period of AWOL; and a self-confessed Article 15 that resulted in a reduction in rank for disobeying a lawful order. 8. The advising psychiatrist found there is likely a nexus between the applicant's PTSD and the reason for his failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention. Notwithstanding the advisory opinion, the applicant received an under honorable conditions (general) discharge, not an UOTHC discharge, the type of discharge the Secretary of Defense's guidance intended to consider for an upgrade. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150017912 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150017912 16 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2