BOARD DATE: 15 June 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002046 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: 15 June 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002046 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: 15 June 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002046 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, an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states: * he did his best and was a good Soldier during his time in the military, especially before his deployment to Iraq * when he first got back from Iraq, he had trouble sleeping, having nightmares, and knew he needed some mental health help * he felt he wasn't getting the help he needed from his chain of command; he was told the mission was more important * he was on numerous medications to help with his issues * he finally was able to get a medical evaluation board (MEB), which rated him 10 % (percent) disability; however, due to numerous misconduct issues, his command pulled him from the disability process * he continues to struggle on a daily basis with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), cannot provide for his children, and seeks treatment and help for his medical conditions 3. The applicant provides: * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), for the period ending 29 August 2007 * eight letters of support from family and friends * approximately 150 pages of military medical documents during his military period of service * DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile), dated 26 February 2007 * a "Memorandum For Record" from his Company Commander, subject: PTSD Letter for (Applicant), dated 14 May 2007 * a "Continuation Statement for DA Form 3947 (Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings), Block #24," dated 30 May 2007 * DA Form 5889-R (PEB (Physical Evaluation Board) Referral Transmittal Document), dated 31 May 2007 * two documents discussing Soldiers receiving punishment vice medical assistance, dated 3 November 2011 and 23 March 2012, respectively * a document titled "Assessment Summary" from Resilience Counseling Service, Winston Salem, NC, dated 3 September 2013 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 5 February 2004. After completing his initial entry training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 68W (Health Care Specialist). 3. The applicant was assigned to Fort Carson, CO, on or about 6 September 2004, and deployed with his unit in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom from on or about 2 December 2005 through on or about 7 November 2006, a period of 11 months and 6 days. 4. A DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 21 March 2007, shows the applicant was command-referred for a mental status evaluation based on a concern for his well-being and underwent an evaluation by a licensed medical provider. The medical provider stated his behavior was normal with unremarkable mood or affect. He was fully alert and oriented with clear thinking process and normal thought content. Furthermore, he met medical retention requirements in accordance with chapter 3, Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness); he was mental responsible and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in any proceedings. Based on this evaluation, the clinical interview, psychometric testing, and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV), he was diagnosed with PTSD and alcohol dependence. 5. A DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 23 July 2007, shows court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for the following charges: a. Charge I, for violating Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); specifically, for three specifications of failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 9 July 2007, 10 July 2007, and 11 July 2007, respectively. b. Charge II, for violating Article 91 of the UCMJ; specifically, for three specifications of willfully disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer on 28 June 2007, 6 July 2007, and 10 July 2007, respectively. c. Charge III, for violating Article 108 of the UCMJ; specifically, for willfully damaging by kicking his barracks room door, of value of $500, military property of the U.S. on or about 20 June 2007. d. Charge IV, for violating Article 128 of the UCMJ; specifically, for three specifications of committing an assault: (1) At or near Fort Carson, CO, on or about 9 June 2007, causing unlawful bodily harm to (a civilian female) by grabbing her and pushing her backwards into her quarters with your hands. (2) At or near Fort Carson, CO, on or about 9 June 2007, committing an assault upon (a civilian female) by grabbing her around the neck with his hands and twisting her head several times with a force likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm, to wit: his hands and body. (3) At or near Fort Carson, CO, on or about 9 June 2007, commit an assault upon a civilian female by pointing at her a dangerous weapon, to wit: a Bersa, RSA Thunder, R45 UTL, serial number ******. e. Charge V, for violating Article 134 of the UCMJ; specifically, for four specifications in which: (1) At or near Fort Carson, CO, on or about 17 March 2007, he intentionally injured himself by consuming a large amount of prescription drugs. (2) At or near Fort Carson, CO, on or about 9 June 2007, he conducted himself in a disorderly manner that was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. (3) At or near Fort Carson, CO, on or about 9 June 2007, he wrongfully communicated to a civilian female a threat to injure. (4) At or near fort Carson, CO, on or about 28 June 2007 and on or about 3 July 2007, on divers occasions, having been restricted to the limits of Fort Carson, CO, by a person authorized to do so, he did break said restrictions. 6. Subsequently, an additional charge was preferred in violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ; specifically, he was additionally charged with being absent without leave (AWOL) from on or about 21 July 2007 to on or about 23 July 2007. 7. A DD Form 2707 (Confinement Order), dated 23 July 2007, with associated documents, was ordered against the applicant, due to the serious nature of his criminal misconduct and the fact that he was judged to pose a flight risk. 8. The applicant's immediate commander forwarded the court-martial charges to higher headquarters on 23 July 2007, and recommended a special court-martial empowered to adjudge a bad conduct discharge. The applicant's intermediate commanders concurred with the immediate commander's recommendation on 25 July 2007, and forwarded the charges to the court-martial convening authority. 9. The applicant consulted with legal counsel on 7 August 2007, and subsequent to that meeting, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial for the good of the service. In doing so, the applicant acknowledged that the charges preferred against him under the UCMJ authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. He further acknowledged: * he had not been subjected to coercion with respect to his request for discharge * he had been advised of the implications that were attached to it * by submitting the request, he was acknowledging he was guilty of the charge(s) against him or of (a) lesser included offense(s) therein contained which also authorized imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge * he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA) * he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits and he could be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws * he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of an under other than honorable conditions discharge * he elected not to submit any statements on his own behalf 10. The separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge on 23 August 2007. He directed the applicant’s reduction to the lowest enlisted grade and directed that his service be characterized as under other than honorable conditions. He further directed the applicant not be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve. 11. The applicant was discharged on 29 August 2007, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial for the good of the service. The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he was discharged in the rank/grade of private/E-1 and his service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions. He competed 3 years, 6 months, and 21 days of net active service and he had lost time from 20 July 2007 through 23 July 2007. He was awarded the Combat Medical Badge. 12. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. On 18 May 2011, the ADRB determined the applicant's reason for discharge and characterization of service were both proper and equitable and denied his request for a discharge upgrade. 13. The applicant provides the following in support of his application: a. Eight letters of support from family and friends that attest to the fact that the applicant was an outgoing, joyful, energetic person before his return from Iraq. He has since been distant, has mood swings, and is in need of medical support. b. Approximately 150 pages of military medical documents during his period of service that detail his medical health. Numerous military medical documents, dated in the year 2007, show he was diagnosed and treated with medication for PTSD and depression. c. A DA Form 3349, dated 26 February 2007, which shows he was given a permanent "P" profile under the category of psychiatric "S" by the Psychiatry Service Clinic at the Evans Army Community Hospital. The stated medical condition was PTSD and noted he was pending an MEB. d. A memorandum for record from his company commander, S.J.W., (presumed to be his commander in Iraq), dated 14 May 2007, subject: PTSD Letter for (Applicant), indicates that the applicant was exposed to several disturbing events during his deployment to Iraq that drastically altered his performance and conduct. He further stated the applicant was going through an MEB process and recommended he be allowed to continue to separate from the Army. e. A document titled "Continuation Statement for DA Form 3947 (Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings), Block #24," dated 30 May 2007. This states the applicant reviewed the contents of the MEB packet and attached documents and included all his current medical conditions whether or not they meet medical retention standards. He signed and dated this document on 30 May 2007. f. A DA Form 5889-R (PEB (Physical Evaluation Board) Referral Transmittal Document), dated 31 May 2007, which shows the applicant's MEB and other associated documents were being transmitted to the President, PEB at Madigan Army Medical Center, Fort Lewis, WA. g. Two documents discussing Soldiers receiving punishment vice medical assistance, dated 3 November 2011 and 23 March 2012, respectively. h. A document titled "Assessment Summary" from Resilience Counseling Service, Winston Salem, NC, dated 3 September 2013 shows the applicant was evaluated by a Dr. C.C., PsyD (Psychologist) which diagnosed the applicant with PTSD, depressive disorder, and anxiety all of which were attributed to his military service. 14. In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained on 29 November 2016 from an Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) Clinical Psychiatrist. The advisory opinion states: a. The applicant served in the Army from 5 February 2004 until 29 August 2007, in MOS 68W (Health Care Specialist). While on active duty, he served a tour of duty in Iraq from 2 December 2005 through 7 November 2006. On 29 August 2007, he was discharged from the Army with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, by reason in lieu of trial by court-martial. His misconduct consisted of multiple instances of failure to report, multiple instances of willfully disobeying a lawful order from a superior NCO, multiple instances of assault, damage to military property, communicating a threat and self-injury. He is now applying to the ABCMR to have his discharge upgraded, contending he had PTSD at the time of his discharge that led to his misconduct. b. Information provided by the applicant and the ABCMR was reviewed to include the applicant's application to the ABMCR, his civilian medical documentation, and his military separation file. The military electronic medical record (AHLTA) and the Veteran Affairs (VA) electronic medical record (JLV) were also reviewed. c. The civilian medical documentation submitted by the applicant consists of an Assessment Summary provided by a Dr. C.C., PsyD (Psychologist) of the Resilience Counseling Service, dated 3 September 2013. In this assessment, the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD which he attributes to the applicant's military service. Review of the electronic military medical record indicates that, during his time in the Army, the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, anxiety state (unspecified), alcohol dependence and cannabis abuse. Review of the VA electronic medical record indicates that the applicant has been followed by the VA for PTSD, major depression, substance abuse and adult antisocial behavior. d. A review of his military records indicates that he received multiple counseling statements related to his misconduct. His separation Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 21 March 2007 indicates that the applicant had a normal mental status exam. The applicant was found to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings and he was found to be mentally responsible. The applicant met military retention standards IAW chapter 3, Army Regulation 40-501. e. In conclusion, a review of the military electronic record indicates the applicant was diagnosed with combat-related PTSD while on active duty. It is the medical opinion of the ARBA Psychiatrist that the applicant's PTSD is partially mitigating for some of the misconduct that led to the applicant's discharge from the Army. (1) Because PTSD can be associated with avoidant behaviors, there is a likely nexus between the applicant's PTSD and the multiple offenses of failure to report. (2) Additionally, because PTSD is associated with self-destructive behaviors, there is a likely nexus between the applicant's PTSD and the applicant's offense of self-injury. (3) The offenses of assault, damage to military property, communicating a threat and willfully disobeying a lawful order are not mitigated by PTSD. 15. The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion and responded via two personal friends advocating for him. a. On 14 December 2016, a Mr. W.M.H., in effect, stated if some of the applicant's conduct is partially mitigated then the overall outcome should be in favor of the Soldier. The applicant's condition is a result of his combat service and he is mentally incapable of supporting himself. He is being cared for by his mother and is currently unemployable. The applicant is in dire need of VA medical benefits and compensation. b. On 23 December 2016, a Ms. M.A.B., in effect, stated all the applicant's misconduct occurred after his return from Iraq. With his role as a combat medic, he saw the horrors that war causes on a daily basis and suffers mentally from those memories. He was diagnosed with PTSD upon his return and still suffers some 10 years later. An overturn of this discharge would help him receive the medical benefits he is in most need of. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Army physical disability evaluation system and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating. Paragraph 4-1-3 states a member who is under investigation for or charged with an offense for which he could be dismissed or given a punitive discharge may not be referred for disability processing. It also states an enlisted Soldier may not be referred for, or continue, physical disability processing when action has been started under any regulatory provision which authorizes a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 2. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a provides an honorable discharge is given when the quality of the Soldier's service has generally met standards of acceptable conduct and duty performance. b. 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. c. Chapter 10 of the version in effect at the time provided that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after court-martial charges were preferred. Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service. Consulting counsel would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses charged, type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of Veterans Administration benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge. An undesirable discharge certificate would normally be furnished an individual who was discharged for the good of the Service. An under conditions other than honorable characterization of service required reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. 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 under other than honorable conditions may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge. It is also acknowledged that in some cases this undiagnosed condition of PTSD may have been a mitigating factor in the Soldier's misconduct which served as a catalyst for their discharge. Research has also shown that misconduct stemming from PTSD is typically based upon a spur of the moment decision resulting from temporary lapse in judgment; therefore, PTSD is not a likely cause for either premeditated misconduct or misconduct that continues for an extended period 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 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. 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 under other than honorable conditions 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. a. 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. b. 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. c. 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 that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge was carefully considered. 2. The applicant contends he felt he wasn't getting the help he needed from his chain of command and was told the mission was more important. Notwithstanding the applicant's sincerity, the available records contain a command referral to mental health out of concern for his well-being and further contain no evidence that shows his chain of command denied him any supporting services, e.g., medical or spiritual, that would indicate that they were arbitrary or capricious in their actions. 3. The evidence of record shows the applicant had multiple offenses that were punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge, including three specifications of aggravated assault to include a weapon, disorderly conduct, damaging government property, communicating a threat, numerous instances of failure to obey a lawful order, numerous instances of failure to report, intentional self-injury with intent to avoid service, breaking restriction, and AWOL. After consulting with legal counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge in order to avoid trial by court-martial and the potential punitive discharge. By requesting discharge, he admitted he was guilty of the charges. 4. The applicant's voluntary request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable laws and regulations. There is no indication his request was made under coercion or duress. His discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service. The characterization of service he received was commensurate with the reason for his discharge. 5. The applicant further contends he was in the process of receiving medical assistance via the MEB and disability process. However, the governing regulation states an enlisted Soldier may not be referred for, or continue, physical disability processing when action has been started under any regulatory provision that authorizes a characterization of service of UOTHC. His serious misconduct occurred before the final disposition of his physical disability processing. As a result of the separation authority's action, the medical disability processing was properly terminated. 6. The applicant's military service was marked by a number of serious incidents involving misconduct. He was diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional. It is impossible to know for certain whether his service-connected PTSD played a role in the misconduct that ultimately led to his discharge. However, the ARBA Clinical Psychiatrist opined that the applicant's PTSD is partially mitigating for some of the misconduct which led to the applicant's discharge from the Army. a. Because PTSD can be associated with avoidant behaviors, there is a likely nexus between the applicant's PTSD and the multiple offenses of failure to report. b. Additionally, because PTSD is associated with self-destructive behaviors, there is a likely nexus between the applicant's PTSD and the applicant's offense of self-injury. c. The offenses of assault, damage to military property, communicating a threat and willfully disobeying a lawful order are not mitigated by PTSD. 7. An honorable character of service is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. An under honorable conditions character of service is appropriate for those Soldiers whose military record is satisfactory, but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 8. Based on the number of very serious offenses: three specifications of assault; which included the use of a weapon, communicating a threat; numerous disobeying lawful orders; and damaging military property in which the medical opinion viewed as conduct not mitigated by PTSD, and coupled with the fact that he voluntarily requested to be discharged in order to avoid a trial by court-martial that could have resulted in a punitive discharge, his overall record of service did not support the issuance of an honorable or general discharge by the separation authority at the time and it does not support an upgrade of his discharge now. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160002046 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160002046 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2