BOARD DATE: 14 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160007274 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: 14 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160007274 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 correcting his DD Form 214, as follows: a. deleting from item 18 the entry: "IMMEDIATE REENLISTMENTS THIS PERIOD: 19830517–19861125, 19861126–19920629" and b. adding to item 18 the entry: "CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 19830517 UNTIL 19920629." 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 upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions character of service for the period of service from 30 June 1992 through 28 April 1995. ____________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: 14 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160007274 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 upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge based upon a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 2. The applicant states that he suffers from PTSD, most of which is a result of having served in the Persian Gulf War. 3. The applicant provides copies of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rating decision and a Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense memorandum. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 17 May 1983 for a period of 4 years. Upon completion of training he was awarded military occupational specialty 68N (Avionic Mechanic). a. Through two reenlistments in the RA (on 26 November 1986 and 30 June 1992), he continued to serve on active duty. He was promoted to staff sergeant on 1 October 1990. b. He served in Saudi Arabia from 18 December 1990 through 7 May 1991. 2. On 5 April 1995, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): * Article 107 (two specifications), for – * on 28 February 1995, with intent to deceive, twice signing an official record that misrepresented his enrollment as a student at a university; attendance at the air assault course; and that he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal, Air Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, Joint Service Commendation Medal, Joint Service Achievement Medal, Multinational Force and Observers Medal, Air Assault Badge, and Driver Badge * on 28 February 1995, with intent to deceive, making an official statement that two official records were correct and that he did graduate from the university within two years, which statements were totally false and then known by the applicant to be so false * Article 134 (four specifications), for – * on 14 October 1994, wrongfully and willfully impersonating a noncommissioned officer (NCO) by representing himself to be a sergeant major (SGM) during a telephone conversation * on 1 March 1995, wrongfully and willfully impersonating an NCO by representing himself to be a SGM during a telephone conversation * on 5 April 1995, wrongfully and without authority wearing upon his uniform the ribbons representing the Bronze Star Medal, Air Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, Joint Service Commendation Medal, Joint Service Achievement Medal, Multinational Force and Observers Medal, Air Assault Badge, and Driver Badge * between 5 April 1990 and 5 April 1995, wrongfully and willfully, with intent to deceive the Army and thereby enhance his chances for promotion and career potential, produce, place, and/or maintain in his enlisted records and/or official military personnel file unauthorized and falsified documents (orders for the specified awards and decorations, and certificates of completion for said military training and civilian education); conduct that was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces and of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces 3. On 11 April 1995, the applicant consulted with legal counsel. He was informed of the charges against him for violating the UCMJ and that he was pending trial by court-martial. He was advised of the rights available to him and of the option to request discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. a. He voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. By submitting his request for discharge he acknowledged that he was guilty of the charges against him or of a lesser included offense(s) therein contained, which also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. The applicant's request for discharge states he was not subjected to coercion with respect to his request for discharge. b. He was advised that he might be – * deprived of many or all Army benefits * ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA * deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws c. He acknowledged he understood that, if his request for discharge was accepted, he might be discharged UOTHC. He also acknowledged that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in the event an under honorable conditions discharge was issued to him. d. He was also advised that he could submit statements in his own behalf and he indicated statements in his own behalf were submitted with his request. A review of the applicant's request for separation failed to reveal any statements. e. The applicant and his counsel placed their signatures on the document. 4. On 17 April 1995, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge, reduced him to the lowest enlisted grade, and directed that his service be characterized as UOTHC. 5. The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he entered active duty this period on 17 May 1983 and he was discharged on 28 April 1995 under the provisions of (UP) Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial with an UOTHC characterization of service. He had completed 11 years, 11 months, and 12 days of net active service during this period. It also shows, in pertinent part, in item 18 (Remarks): "Immediate Reenlistments This Period: 19830517–19861125, 19861126–19920629 [17 May 1983–25 November 1986, 26 November 1986–29 June 1992]." 6. On 19 December 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) considered the applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge. The ADRB determined that the reason for his discharge and the character of his service were both proper and equitable. The ADRB denied the relief requested by the applicant. 7. In support of his application the applicant provides a copy of a VA Salt Lake City Regional Office, UT, rating decision, dated 27 January 2009, that shows the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD in 1998, but he declined treatment; in 2002, he reported nightmares related to Gulf War experiences and intrusive memories of Gulf War experiences daily with flashbacks about twice a day. His PTSD with secondary dysthymic disorder, memory loss, inattentiveness, sleep disturbance, and fatigue was increased to 70 percent disabling effective 28 April 2002. 8. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the medical staff, Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA), dated 13 December 2016. a. The ARBA clinical psychologist stated she was asked to determine if there is a nexus between the (PTSD) information/diagnosis contained in the documentation and the misconduct that resulted in the applicant's discharge. b. The opinion is based on the information provided by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) and the applicant (in his application). (The Department of Defense (DoD) electronic medical record (AHLTA) was not in use at the time of his service.) Based on her review of available medical records, she found no evidence that the diagnosis of PTSD or any other behavioral health (BH) condition existed during the applicant's military service or that his misconduct was mitigated by a BH condition. c. She stated that the presence of potentially untreated PTSD during his time in service does not mitigate his actions as the nature of this condition is not reasonably related to his multiple infractions of misconduct. This observation does not negate the applicant's post-service diagnosis of PTSD. She concluded there is no evidence that this condition would support a change to the character or reason for the discharge in this case. 9. On 14 December 2016, the applicant was provided a copy of the ARBA advisory opinion to allow him the opportunity (30 days) to submit comments or a rebuttal. A response was not received from the applicant. REFERENCES: 1. 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." 2. 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. 3. 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, along with 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. 4. 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 DoD acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged UOTHC may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge. It is also acknowledged that in some cases this undiagnosed condition of PTSD may have been a mitigating factor in the Soldier's misconduct which served as a catalyst for their discharge. Research has also shown that misconduct stemming from PTSD is typically based upon a spur of the moment decision resulting from temporary lapse in judgment; therefore, PTSD is not a likely cause for either premeditated misconduct or misconduct that continues for an extended period of time. 5. 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. 6. 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? 7. Although DoD acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged UOTHC may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge, it is presumed that they were properly discharged based upon the evidence that was available at the time. Conditions documented in the record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which PTSD or PTSD-related conditions may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge; those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the UOTHC characterization of service. 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. 8. AR 635-200, in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. 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. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate. b. Chapter 3, 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. c. Chapter 3, paragraph 3-7b, provides that 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. 9. AR 635-5 (Personnel Separations – Separation Documents), in effect at the time, prescribed the separation documents that must be prepared for Soldiers on retirement, discharge, release from active duty service, or control of the Active Army. It contains item-by-item instructions for completing the DD Form 214. It shows item 18 is used for entries required by Headquarters, Department of the Army, for which a separate block is not available and for completing entries too long for their blocks. a. For enlisted Soldiers with more than one enlistment period during the time covered by the DD Form 214, enter "IMMEDIATE REENLISTMENTS THIS PERIOD (specify dates)." b. However, for Soldiers who have previously reenlisted without being issued a DD Form 214 and are separated with any characterization of service except honorable, enter "CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM (first day of service which DD Form 214 was not issued) UNTIL (date before commencement of current enlistment)." DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends that his UOTHC discharge should be upgraded based upon a diagnosis of PTSD. 2. The evidence of record shows the applicant served in Southwest Asia during the Gulf War from 18 December 1990 to 7 May 1991. He was discharged on 28 April 1995. a. He was diagnosed by the VA with PTSD in 1998. b. The evidence of record shows that PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. c. The charges preferred against the applicant that were the basis for his request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial included twice signing official records that misrepresented his military and civilian credentials; with intent to deceive, making an official statement that official records were correct; twice misrepresenting himself to be a SGM; wrongfully and without authority wearing upon his uniform ribbons misrepresenting his awards and decorations; and with intent to deceive the Army, producing, placing, and/or maintaining in his enlisted records and/or official military person file unauthorized and falsified documents. The foregoing actions clearly were not spontaneous; they were premeditated. d. The ARBA clinical psychologist failed to find evidence that a diagnosis of PTSD or any other BH condition existed during the applicant's military service. She also failed to find evidence that his misconduct was mitigated by a BH condition. She concluded that there is no evidence that would support a change to the character or reason for the discharge in this case. 3. The evidence of record shows that the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10, to avoid trial by court-martial was both voluntary and administratively correct. All requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. In addition, the reason for and type of discharge directed were appropriate and equitable. 4. The governing regulation states a DD Form 214 will not be prepared for enlisted Soldiers discharged for immediate reenlistment in the RA. a. The applicant enlisted in the RA on 17 May 1983 and he last reenlisted in the RA on 30 June 1992. b. A DD Form 214 was not authorized for issuance when he was discharged on 29 June 1992 to reenlist in the RA. c. For Soldiers who have multiple continuous enlistments and are separated with any characterization of service except honorable, an entry will be made in item 18 showing the period of their continuous honorable active service up until the date before commencement of the current enlistment. d. Item 18 of the applicant's DD Form 214 does not contain such an entry. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160007274 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160007274 9 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2