BOARD DATE: 27 June 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001114 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 BOARD DATE: 27 June 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001114 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 amending his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) as follows: a. deleting the current entry in item 12f (Foreign Service) and replacing it with the entry "00  06  00," b. adding award of the Kuwait Liberation Medal-Kuwait to item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized), c. deleting the entry "SERVICE IN SOUTHWEST ASIA 19921021-19921217" from item 18 (Remarks) d. adding the entry "SERVICE IN KUWAIT FROM 19921001-19930301" to item 18. 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 fully honorable. ___________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: 27 June 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001114 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 correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show his foreign service in Kuwait during the Gulf War. In a subsequent application, he requests an upgrade of his discharge to honorable. 2.  He states he completed two deployments in Kuwait between October 1992 and March 1994; however, his DD Form 214 only shows foreign service of 1 month and 28 days. He was not a bad Soldier, but he let the stress and frustration from combat negatively impact his life. His leadership didn't give him any guidance for how to deal with the combat stress, but they were good at giving him nonjudicial punishment. He believes this is an injustice. 3.  He provides: * partial separation packet * various certificates of appreciation * DD Form 214 for the period ending 27 July 1994 * letter from an attorney, dated 18 August 2998, subject: Name Change * electronic medical problem list printout, dated 18 August 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.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 September 1991. 3.  His records do not contain the discharge packet. All the information related to his discharge proceedings was provided by the applicant. 4.  On an unknown date, the applicant's company commander informed him he was initiating action to separate him for a pattern of misconduct with a general discharge under honorable conditions in accordance with Army Regulation  635-200 (Enlisted Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b. The reasons cited were the applicant: * received battery-grade under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice on 3 March 1994 for disobeying a noncommissioned officer (NCO), disrespecting an NCO, and purchasing alcohol for an underage Soldier * received a second battery-grade nonjudicial punishment on 4 May 1994 for disrespecting an NCO and disobeying an NCO * received a summarized nonjudicial punishment on 25 June 1993 for being disrespectful toward an NCO * was counseled twice for losing his identification card, numerous times for disrespecting and disobeying NCOs, being absent from formations, and indebtness 5.  There is no documentation from the separation authority directing the applicant's discharge. However, on 27 July 1994, he was discharged for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b. He was issued a DD Form 214 showing this narrative reason for separation as misconduct. He completed 2 years, 10 months, and 16 days of creditable active service during this period. His service was characterized as general under honorable conditions. 6.  Item 12f (Foreign Service) of his DD Form 214 shows he completed 1 month and 26 days of foreign service. Item 18 (Remarks) shows he served in Southwest Asia from 21 October 1992 to 17 December 1992. 7.  He was awarded or authorized the: * National Defense Service Medal * Army Service Ribbon * Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar * Southwest Asia Service Medal with one bronze service star 8.  The Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm Database shows he served in Southwest Asia from 1 October 1992 to 31 March 1993 (6 months in whole months). 9.  There is no record of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or other behavioral health diagnosis made by a mental health professional during his period of active service. 10.  He provided certificates showing his participation in Operation Southern Watch in Kuwait and a medical problem list, which includes treatment for depressive disorder and anxiety. The source of the medical problem list is unknown. 11.  There is no indication in his records that he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 12.  On 24 February 2017, the applicant's member of Congress stated the applicant had a recent diagnosis of PTSD. Notwithstanding this statement, no medical evidence was provided showing the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD by a mental health professional. 13.  The Army Review Boards Agency staff psychologist provided a medical opinion. He was asked to determine if there was a possible nexus between the applicant's report of combat stress (PTSD) and the misconduct that resulted in his discharge from the military. After reviewing the information provided by the applicant and a limited view of his Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical records, the psychologist stated: a.  The applicant was diagnosed (post-service) with depressive disorder on 23 May 2012 and sleep apnea on 16 May 2014. b.  A review of his military personnel record shows his multiple acts of misconduct occurred after his deployment to Southwest Asia. c.  The member of Congress referenced PTSD in his communication; however, no medical evidence was provided to support his statement. d.  The applicant met the medical standards for fitness as per Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) that were applicable during the applicant's era of service. e.  There is no evidence showing the applicant had a boardable behavioral health condition at the time of his service warranting processing through the physical disability evaluation system in accordance with Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation). f.  There is insufficient evidence to mitigate the applicant's multiple acts of misconduct to a mental health condition at the time of his service. g.  A review of available documentation did not show a mitigating nexus existed between the applicant's misconduct and his mental health attributed to combat stress (PTSD) related to his service in Southwest Asia. 13.  The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion for his review and rebuttal. He did not respond. REFERENCES: 1.  Army Regulation 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 that could result in a punitive discharge, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. b.  Paragraph 3-7a provides that 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. 2.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the Kuwait Liberation Medal awarded by the Government of Kuwait was approved on 9 November 1995 and is authorized to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who participated in the Persian Gulf War between 2 August 1990 and 31 August 1993. 3.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, governed preparation of the DD Form 214. The instructions stated: a.  To list all foreign service credit performed during the period covered by the DD Form 214 in item 12f. b.  For an active duty Soldier deployed to a foreign country with his or her unit during their continuous period of active service, enter the statement "SERVICE IN (name of country deployed) FROM (inclusive dates for example, YYYYMMDD-YYYYMMDD)" in item 18 (Remarks). 4.  On 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records to carefully consider current 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. a.  The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), chapter 7, addresses trauma and stress or related disorders. The DSM is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and provides standard criteria and common language for classification of mental disorders. In 1980, the APA added PTSD to the third edition of its DSM nosologic classification scheme. Although controversial when first introduced, the PTSD diagnosis has filled an important gap in psychiatric theory and practice. From a 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." b.  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. c.  The fifth edition of the DSM 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 criterion assesses functioning, and the eighth criterion clarifies symptoms as not attributable to a substance or co-occurring medical condition. 5.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)), paragraph 2-9 provides that the Board 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. DISCUSSION: 1.  The Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm Database shows the applicant served in Kuwait from 1 October 1992 to 31 March 1993. Item 12f of his DD Form 214 shows 1 month and 26 days of foreign service. 2.  His service in Kuwait qualifies him for award of the Kuwait Liberation Medal-Kuwait. 3.  Although a complete copy of his discharge packet is not available for review, the presumption of administrative regularity should be applied. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 due to multiple acts of misconduct as documented in the evidence he provided and as shown on his DD Form 214. There is no evidence showing he was not properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time, all requirements of law and regulations were not met, or his rights were not fully protected throughout the separation process. 4.  Although mentioned by his member of Congress, the applicant did not provide evidence showing he was diagnosed with PTSD post-service. A review of his medical records by an agency staff psychologist does not support a nexus between his post-service diagnosis of depressive disorder (documented evidence) and his multiple acts of misconduct occurring while in service in 1993 and 1994 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) AR20160001114 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160001114 7 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2