BOARD DATE: 18 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160003938 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 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160003938 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in proceedings conducted on 26 March 1975. _____________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 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160003938 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 reconsideration of his earlier request to upgrade his undesirable discharge under other than honorable conditions. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he believes the actions that led to his discharge were caused by post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). If the Army had known about PTSD and its symptoms, at the time, he would have been treated rather than discharged. He asserts, his average conduct and efficiency ratings were good, as were his proficiency marks. He received awards and decorations, along with letters of recommendation. He had combat service, and his record of promotion showed he was generally a good Soldier. He had a prior honorable discharge. He has been a good citizen since his discharge. His record of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) indicates only two isolated and minor offenses. 3. The applicant provides: * page 2 of a DA Form 2627-1 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ) (NJP), dated 29 January 1969 * page 1 of a DA Form 2627-1, dated 3 July 1972 * General Orders (GO) Number 7698, dated 12 August 1969 * GO Number 11714, dated 13 November 1969 * Bronze Star Medal Certificate, dated 10 January 1971 * Bronze Star Medal Citation, for the period November 1968 to November 1969 * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), ending 27 May 1970 * letter of appreciation, dated 27 October 1970 * 1st indorsement for a letter of commendation, dated 19 October 1971 * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), ending 21 November 1973 * DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty), dated 3 December 1974 * self-authored statement, dated 5 August 1974 * letter of support, dated 22 December 2015 * letter, dated 20 April 2016 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in proceedings conducted on 26 March 1975 [no docket number is indicated]. 2. The applicant submits a letter of support and a memorandum affirming a PTSD diagnosis. This evidence was not previously considered, and warrants consideration by the Board. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 November 1967. Following initial training, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 94B (Cook). 4. He served in Vietnam from on or about 26 November 1968 to on or about 25 November 1969. The following are reflected in his available service record from his tour in Vietnam: a. He accepted NJP on 29 January 1969, for carelessly discharging his weapon while attempting to clean it and causing injury to his left foot. b. GO Number 7698, dated 12 August 1969, issued by Headquarters, Americal Division, awarded him the Army Commendation Medal for the meritorious achievement during the period 1 May to 27 May 1969. c. GO Number 10312, dated 8 October 1969, issued by Headquarters, Americal Division, awarded him the Bronze Star Medal (1st Award) for meritorious service during the period November 1968 to November 1969. d. GO Number 11714, dated 13 November 1969, issued by Headquarters, Americal Division, awarded him the Bronze Star Medal (2nd Award) with "V" Device for saving the life of a wounded fellow Soldier by carrying him hundreds of meters through enemy fire to safety. 5. Following his tour in Vietnam, he was assigned to Fort Benning, GA, arriving on or about 13 January 1970. He changed his MOS to 64B (Heavy Vehicle Driver). 6. He was honorably discharged, on 27 May 1970, so that he could immediately reenlist. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 2 years, 6 months, and 4 days of net active creditable service. His rank/grade was specialist five (SP5)/E-5. His DD Form 214 also shows he was awarded or authorized: * Bronze Star Medal * Army Commendation Medal * National Defense Service Medal * Vietnam Service Medal * Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960) * two overseas service bars 7. He was reassigned to Germany on or about 8 May 1972. During his service in Germany, his available service record shows: a. While in Germany, he accepted NJP on 3 July 1972 for being disorderly in a local bar. b. A final U.S. Army Criminal Investigation (CID) report, dated 26 July 1973, showing the applicant as one of four white assailants who attacked two off-duty military policemen (MPs), one of whom was black, and the other white. The assault took place the early morning of 16 March 1973, and the report titled him for aggravated assault. The report also showed a prior military police report wherein he had been charged with disorderly conduct and communicating a threat. 8. On 11 September 1973, the applicant's commander in Germany preferred court-martial charges against him for two specifications of aggravated assault while using a club, a weapon likely to produce grievous bodily harm. On 2 October 1973, an additional charge was preferred for unlawfully kicking a sergeant first class (SFC) on the back of his feet. 9. On 10 October 1973, the applicant consulted with counsel (a Judge Advocate General officer). He was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct discharge or dishonorable discharge. Subsequent to receiving counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service), Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel). He elected not to submit statements in his own behalf and acknowledged/understood: * he had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person * if his discharge request was accepted, he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate * as a result of the issuance of a UOTHC he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits * he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration * he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws * he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life 10. On 14 November 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge, directed reduction in grade to private (PV1)/E-1, as well as the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 21 November 1973, he was discharged accordingly. 11. His DD Form 214, as amended by a DD Form 215, shows he was discharged under other than honorable conditions. He completed 3 years, 5 months, and 24 days net active creditable service for the period of the report (total of 5 years, 11 months, and 28 days net active creditable service). His rank/grade was PV1/E-1. The reason and authority is AR 635-200. The Separation Program Designator is "246" [Discharge for the Good of the Service]. He was awarded or authorized: * Bronze Star Medal (2nd Award) and "V" Device * Army Commendation Medal * Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award) * National Defense Service Medal * Vietnam Service Medal * Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960) * Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16) * Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-14) * two overseas service bars 12. His available service record contains a DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) that shows he had conduct and efficiency ratings of "Excellent" throughout his military service until the entry for May 1972. This entry indicates "Unsatisfactory." 13. He requested the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to upgrade his discharge and, on 5 December 1974, via letter, the ADRB notified him his request was denied. 14. On 17 December 1974, he petitioned the ABCMR to upgrade his character of service to honorable. a. He argued his adverse discharge stemmed from an off-duty altercation with two MPs. He alleged the MPs had given him a ticket for wrecking a school bus, but his commander had found he was not responsible, and the "ticket was torn up." The MPs were upset about this. They harassed him both on and off duty, and this caused the fight. b. The Board determined his first period of service was honorable, completely and unconditionally. However, the Board denied his request to upgrade his character of service to honorable for his second period of service. 15. The applicant provides: * two letters of commendation/appreciation given during his active service * a letter of support from his employer, dated 22 December 2015, attesting to his excellent character, and affirms he is "rock solid, honest and kind" * letter from a Social Worker for a Veterans Center, credentialed with a Masters in Social Work (MSW), Licensed Independent Social Worker (LICSW), who states the applicant(s): * displays PTSD symptoms * behavior related to his UOTHC discharge is directly correlated to war related PTSD * meets the criteria for diagnosis of PTSD 16. On 18 November 2016, a psychologist with the Army Review Boards Agency provided an advisory opinion. a. The Case Management Division (CMD) requested a medical advisory opinion for this case to determine if medical conditions were considered during separation processing. Specifically: * does the available record reasonably support the existence of PTSD, or other boardable behavioral health (BH) conditions (i.e. requiring Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) referral) * did these conditions fail medical retention standards outlined in AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), warranting separation through medical channels * is this condition or conditions a mitigating factor in the misconduct that resulted in the applicant's discharge * if applicable, was a required medical examination conducted per Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1177 (Members diagnosed with or reasonably asserting PTSD or traumatic brain injury (TBI): medical examination required before administrative separation) [does not apply] * include any additional information deemed appropriate b. The applicant’s DD Form 214 indicated a discharge, on 14 November 1973, under other than honorable conditions, for the good of the service. He is petitioning to upgrade his character of service. c. Sources: limited review of Department of Veteran’s Affairs (VA) records through the Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV); applicant supplied evidence submitted on 12 December 2011 and 1 October 2015, with his application to the Board, and military service records, as obtained by CMD. The Department of Defense (DOD) electronic medical record (Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA)) was not in use during the applicant's era of service. d. Brief Summary. (1) The applicant was in the Army from 24 November 1967 to 21 November 1973. On 27 May 1970, he received an honorable discharge and immediately reenlisted. He served in Vietnam. He was discharged under other than honorable conditions because of his role in an assault of two Soldiers, occurring at 0100 hours on a street in Germany. During his service in Vietnam, he was awarded a Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device for saving the life of another Soldier by dragging him to safety while under enemy fire. (2) He requested an upgrade of his character of service and was notified of the ADRB's denial in December 1974. His application includes a letter, dated 26 April 2016, from Mr. DP (an MSW/LICSW) who indicates he has diagnosed the applicant with PTSD, setting out his symptoms past and present, and explaining how they meet the criteria for PTSD (which they do). (3) On the basis of this letter, and the symptoms, which included demonstrable irritability and poor judgment after exposure to combat trauma in Vietnam, the liberal guidance of the DOD implies the applicant had PTSD at the time of his adverse discharge. Nevertheless, the nature of the offenses, as detailed in the CID report makes a favorable finding for mitigation inappropriate. (4) According to the CID, and based on material produced through investigation as well as witness statements, the applicant stopped a car he was driving when he saw the two off-duty MPs, whom he subsequently claimed had a history of harassing him. According to the description from one of the victims, the applicant and his passengers exited the car, and the applicant allegedly began swinging a club he called an "[N-word]-pounder" at one of his victims (a black Soldier). The applicant also apparently accused the other victim (a white Soldier) of being as bad as the black Soldier he had battered because he (the white Soldier) had tried to defend the black Soldier. It is alleged this led to both victims being kicked, while on the ground, in a way that could have caused serious injury. (5) PTSD does not plausibly mitigate this vicious racist assault. In other cases, fighting of a more spontaneous nature could reasonably be mitigated. It is sad that, at the time of this assault, records show the applicant was viewed favorably by his seniors, and was doing good work, despite having PTSD-symptoms, like irritability. (6) In regard to the referral questions: * the applicant's available records do not reasonably support that, at the time of discharge, he had a boardable medical condition * he met standards as described in AR 40-501, and AR 635-40 (Disability Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) * he has no mitigation for the group assault that led to his discharge * the available record did not include a medical examination fitting the requirements of Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1177 [however, this provision was not in effect at the time] * there is no reason to dispute the applicant was a man with heroism in his military record, or that he lived well and honorably since his discharge e. Conclusions. (1) The applicant met medical retention standards, as outlined in AR 40-501, and based on the provisions of AR 635-40, as they were applicable in his era of service. (2) The applicant's medical conditions were duly considered during separation processing. (3) A review of available documentation did not find evidence of a medical disability or condition that would support a change to the character or reason for discharge. A causal nexus between the applicant's behavioral health diagnosis and his discharge-relevant misconduct was not discovered. 17. On 22 November 2016, CMD provided the applicant a copy of the advisory opinion for review and comment. He did not provide a response. REFERENCES: 1. AR 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. 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 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial at any time after the charges have been preferred. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 2. AR 40-501 governs medical fitness standards for enlistment, induction, appointment, retention, and separation including retirement. 3. AR 635-40 prescribes policy and implements the requirements of chapter 61 (Retirement or Separation for Physical Disability) of Title 10, U.S. Code. The mere presence of a medical impairment does not in and of itself justify a finding of unfitness. In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier may reasonably be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. A Soldier is physically unfit when a medical impairment prevents reasonable performance of the duties required of the Soldier's office, grade, rank, or rating. 4. PTSD can occur after someone goes through a traumatic event like combat, assault, or disaster. a. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for 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. b. 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." 5. 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 he or she has been exposed to an event that is considered traumatic. a. Clinical experience with the PTSD diagnosis has shown 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. b. 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. 6. The Fifth Revision of DSM-5 was released in May 2013. This updated edition included 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) * Recurrent, involuntary, and intrusive memories * Traumatic nightmares * Dissociative reactions (e.g., flashbacks) which may occur on a continuum from brief episodes to complete loss of consciousness * Intense or prolonged distress after exposure to traumatic reminders * 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) * Trauma-related thoughts or feelings * 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) * Inability to recall key features of the traumatic event (usually dissociative amnesia; not due to head injury, alcohol, or drugs) * Persistent (and often distorted) negative beliefs and expectations about oneself or the world (e.g., "I am bad," "The world is completely dangerous") * Persistent distorted blame of self or others for causing the traumatic event or for resulting consequences * Persistent negative trauma-related emotions (e.g., fear, horror, anger, guilt, or shame) * Markedly diminished interest in (pre-traumatic) significant activities. * Feeling alienated from others (e.g., detachment or estrangement) * 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) * Irritable or aggressive behavior * Self-destructive or reckless behavior * Hypervigilance * Exaggerated startle response * Problems in concentration * 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 7. 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. a. This acknowledgement is the result of the extensive research conducted by the medical community, along with the relatively recent issuance of revised criteria regarding the causes, diagnosis, and treatment of PTSD. b. It is also recognized that, in some cases, this undiagnosed condition of PTSD may have been a mitigating factor in the misconduct that served as a catalyst for the Soldier's discharge. c. Of note, research has demonstrated 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 extended periods. 8. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense gave written guidance to Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs). The memorandum directed them to consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations, and mitigating factors when taking action on requests for upgrades in the character of service for former service members who had a valid diagnosis of PTSD. 9. BCM/NRs are not courts, nor are they investigative agencies. Therefore, the determinations are 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? 10. Although 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 under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. b. BCM/NRs will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 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. c. PTSD is not a likely a 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 requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. He asserts, in effect, he incurred PTSD because of his exposure to trauma in combat, and that this condition was the cause of the misconduct that led to his discharge. 2. The issuance of a discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200 required the applicant to voluntarily, willingly, and in writing, request discharge from the Army, in lieu of trial by a court-martial. It is presumed that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 3. The medical community and DOD now have a more thorough understanding of PTSD, as well as its potential to serve as a causative factor in a Soldier's misconduct, when the condition has not been diagnosed and goes untreated. Soldiers who suffered from PTSD and were separated solely for misconduct subsequent to a traumatic event warrant careful consideration for the possible recharacterization of their overall service. a. The applicant presents evidence showing a PTSD diagnosis by a licensed independent social worker. b. Guidance from DoD requires the Board to exercise caution when weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 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 must be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. It appears inappropriate, in this case, to find his apparent PTSD was mitigating, given the viciousness of the attack, and the evidence that it was racially motivated. c. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. The description of events, as described in the CID report, suggests this was not a spontaneous act. The applicant, with others, was driving off post when they encountered the two victims (a black and a white MP). The applicant stopped the vehicle, directed racial epithets toward the black MP, and assaulted him with a club he allegedly called a "[N-word]-pounder." He also told the white MP he (the white MP) was as bad as the "N-word" (referring to the black Soldier) because he had defended the black Soldier. He then assaulted the white Soldier as well. Subsequent to this incident, an additional charge was added for assaulting a senior noncommissioned officer. d. An assessment by an ARBA psychologist finds he met medical retention standards while on active duty, and the psychologist did not discover a nexus between the applicant’s PTSD and the misconduct that led to his under other than honorable conditions discharge. 5. Based on the available evidence, it is clear the applicant served honorably and heroically while in Vietnam. Also evident is that, before the incidents that led to his adverse separation, he was held in high regard and had earned excellent ratings, despite the likelihood he may have been exhibiting PTSD symptoms. A review of the evidence does not appear to show his misconduct was rooted in a spur of the moment decision resulting from a temporary lapse in judgment resulting from PTSD or related symptoms. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160003938 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160003938 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2