BOARD DATE: 16 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000351 BOARD VOTE: ____x_____ __x_____ ___x_____ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 16 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000351 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by changing the characterization of his service to general under honorable conditions. _____________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: 16 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000351 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 other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. 2. The applicant states: "After witnessing two helicopter crashes in a five month period in which three close friends were killed, I was diagnosed with [post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)]. I should have been medically discharged after that diagnosis. My service was impeccable prior to suffering from PTSD." He continues, stating "I was suffering from PTSD and was expected to continue flying and performing duties as the unit Aviation Safety Officer…" 3. The applicant confirmed in a telephone call on 25 August 2016 that his intent was to have his discharge upgraded not to obtain physical disability retirement. 4. The applicant provides no additional documentation. 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. Following 2 years of aviation training the applicant was discharged from the Regular Army in pay grade E-5 and he was appointed a U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) aviation warrant officer on 8 December 1983. 3. According to medical records associated with his psychiatric evaluations, the applicant witnessed two aircraft accidents over a 6-month period and developed a physical reaction (profuse sweating and rapid heartbeat) when attempting to fly. This was exaggerated when night-vision equipment was involved. He was grounded in July 1986 and sent to Fort Rucker, AL, for evaluation. There he was diagnosed with PTSD. He was grounded for 6 months in October 1986. Subsequently, he tried unsuccessfully to fly. In May 1987 he was medically recommended for permanent grounding. 4. On 29 June 1987, the applicant was voluntarily admitted to psychiatric services at the Community Mental Health Service (CMHS). He was being processed for administrative separation. The hospital gave him a pass and he failed to return and went into an absent without leave (AWOL) status. He returned to the CMHS on 24 July 1987. His admissions urine tests were positive for THC (marijuana) and cocaine. The applicant functioned well in the hospital and was released on 4 August 1987 with a Axis I diagnoses of occupational problems, cannabis abuse, and cocaine abuse (provisional). 5. An Article 32, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), investigation determined that there was probable cause to charge the applicant with breaking restriction on 24 July 1987 in violation of Article 134, UCMJ, and for being AWOL from 27 to 28 July 1987 in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. 6. The applicant consulted with counsel, and on 1 September 1987, he voluntarily tendered his resignation for the good of the service. He was advised of his rights. He acknowledged that he did not wish to appear before a board of officers, he had not been coerced, and he fully understood the implications and consequences of this action. He also stated he understood that: * his tendered resignation could only be withdrawn with the approval of Headquarters, Department of the Army * his service might be characterized as UOTHC * if so characterized he could not receive any compensation or accrued leave * he would also forfeit any benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA) 7. The chain of command recommended approval of his request and characterization UOTHC, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army approved the request with the determination that his service would be characterized as UOTHC. 8. On 18 December 1987 the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-120, chapter 5, by reason of conduct triable by court-martial with his service characterized as UOTHC. He had completed 4 years and six days of service as a warrant officer with 2 years and 26 days of prior enlisted service. He had lost time from 29 June to 23 July 1987. 9. During the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Office of the Surgeon General. The Chief, Behavioral Health Division, Health Care Delivery, summarized the evidence and concluded: There is no question that [the applicant] met criteria for PTSD during service and was unable to perform his duties as an aviator as evidenced as having been diagnosed with PTSD by two military providers while on active duty. Therefore, it is highly likely that his PTSD contributed to his unauthorized leave and substance abuse that led to his discharge. 10. The medical advisory was forwarded to the applicant for his information and possible response. He did not respond. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-120 (Officer Resignations and Discharges), chapter 5 (Resignation for the Good of the Service), provides that an officer may tender resignation after general court-martial charges have been preferred, while under a suspended sentence, or before charges have been preferred. The characterization of service will normally be UOTHC, although a general discharge or an honorable discharge may be approved. 2. Army Regulation 635-200, 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. 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. 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 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. 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 the Department of Defense (DOD) acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged 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. 6. 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. 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 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? 8. Although the DOD acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged and 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. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant's discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations in effect at the time. The characterization of the applicant's discharge was commensurate with the reason for discharge. 2. At the time of the applicant's discharge, PTSD was recognized only by the medical community and by line commanders. However, both have a more thorough understanding as to how PTSD is potentially a causative factor in a Soldier's misconduct when the condition is not both diagnosed and treated in a timely fashion. 3. Soldiers who suffered from PTSD and were separated solely for misconduct warrant careful consideration for the possible re-characterization of their overall service. 4. The advisory official in this case found there is no question that the applicant met the criteria for PTSD during service. The advisory official concluded that it is highly likely that his PTSD contributed to the unauthorized absence and substance abuse that led to his 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) AR20160000351 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160000351 6 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2