IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160008043 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 IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160008043 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160008043 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 to an honorable discharge based on a post-service diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 2. The applicant states that his family has a proud military history and he aspired to achieve the rank of command sergeant major. He notes that he was born of interracial parents (Irish-American and Japanese). He served in the Army after the Vietnam War with Vietnam veterans. Some were accepting of his physical appearance; however, others were not. He states some told him, "[he] would die from friendly fire, a gook is a gook." a. He enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), Delayed Entry Program, in October 1975 and entered active duty in the Regular Army (RA) in February 1976. He completed training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman) and was assigned to Company C, 1st Battalion, 327th Infantry (Cold Steel), 101st Airborne Division. He set high standards for himself and achieved them. He was quickly promoted to private first class (E-3). b. A couple of months after his arrival in the unit, morale was low because the commanding officer (CO) was volunteering the unit for the brigade's extra duties while other company commanders were not. He was not bothered by this because his mission was to follow orders, but the complaining by the cadre and Soldiers in the unit did bother him. c. On one particular day he saw the company commander riding his bicycle by the brigade headquarters and he ran up to him. He believes he may have startled him because the commander was ready to throw his bicycle at him. He saluted his commander and asked him, "Sir, with all due respect as my CO, but man to man, what the heck are you doing volunteering our company to do all of brigade's extra duties while no other COs are volunteering their companies? The morale of our company totally sucks." The commander chastised him (using foul language) and then offered his admiration concerning the applicant's intestinal fortitude. The extra duties from brigade ended and he was promoted to specialist four (E-4) about two weeks later. d. He continued to maintain high standards and he earned "supernumerary" (best Soldier) from his unit and the brigade. Then, a new platoon sergeant (Sergeant First Class (SFC) William R____) was assigned to take over his platoon and things changed for him because SFC R____ did not like him. e. They attended Air Assault School together and SFC R____ was his "belay man" [the person assigned to pay attention to the person climbing or rappelling]. During a rappelling exercise, SFC R____ pulled the rope out of the applicant's brake hand. He began to freefall and struck the ground with his head, neck, and shoulder first. He states that he refused medical attention, returned to the helicopter, and rappelled correctly. He then went to the hospital. The fall ended his Air Assault training and he has had neck, shoulder, and back problems since. He eventually went back to Air Assault School. f. His physical problems caused him to go on sick call more often and he was labeled a malingerer. SFC R____ wanted him to go to Reconnaissance training, but the applicant did not feel capable of completing the training. SFC R___ became angry with him and began encouraging some African-American Soldiers to physically harm him. He confronted SFC R____ about pulling the rope from his hand and being the cause of his physical problems. g. He then injured his ankle during Jungle Warfare Training in Panama. Officers and Soldiers in the unit began treating him differently. A first lieutenant (1LT) told him to shave and he asked to borrow the 1LT's razor. He received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for being disrespectful to a commissioned officer. He completed Jungle Warfare Training and returned to the United States. h. One day he was in the dayroom shooting pool. Six African-American Soldiers came in and demanded to use the pool table. He told them that there was another pool table not being used. He was then struck in the head with a pool stick and whipped in the torso with a chain. He fought back and escaped from the dayroom. However, nothing ever happened to any of the Soldiers. i. He describes several other incidents. (1) A Soldier collapsing during a "forced march." He administered first aid, including cardiac pulmonary resuscitation. His squad leader recommended him for a commendation, but SFC R____ turned it down. (2) SFC R____ took him to his house one day and had the applicant spread a pile gravel evenly to make a driveway. (3) A fight with an African-American Soldier in the barracks when he was confronted about stealing his shirt. An object was thrown at the applicant and the fight ended when the applicant hit the Soldier with a pool stick. (4) He adds that he saw a lot of Soldiers doing bad things in his unit, but he was singled out by SFC R____. j. He was sent to the retraining brigade where the brigade commander approved of his progress. When the applicant returned to his unit, he requested a transfer, but the company commander denied his request stating, "Private [Applicant], we need good Soldiers like you to help train all of these new privates coming into our company. Cold Steel! You're dismissed!" k. After he was discharged from military service he was the Commander for Chapter 58, Disabled American Veterans. He has assisted in operations to get homeless veterans off the streets and he helps them apply for disability benefits. l. He concludes by stating that he has an honorable discharge through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and he is rated 100 percent (%) disabled based on, in part, his service-connected PTSD. 3. The applicant provides copies of: * a self-authored statement (18 pages), undated (summarized above) * his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) * seven certificates * his VA and civilian medical records CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the USAR on 26 February 1976 for a period of 6 years. He further enlisted in the RA on 16 March 1976 for a period of 3 years for training in MOS 11B and assignment to the 101st Airborne Division, Fort Campbell, KY. 2. Upon completion of training he was awarded MOS 11B and assigned to Company C, 1st Battalion, 327th Infantry, Fort Campbell, KY, on 16 July 1976. 3. His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record), in pertinent part, shows in: * item 17 (Civilian Education and Military Schools) – * Infantryman (MOS 11B1O), Fort Benning, GA, 1976 * Air Assault School, Fort Campbell, KY, 1976 * Jungle Warfare, Fort Sherman, Canal Zone, 1977 * item 18 (Appointments and Reductions) – * private (E-1), 16 March 1976 * private (E-2) 16 July 1976 * private first class (E-3), 6 May 1977 * specialist four (E-4), 21 October 1977 * private first class (E-3), 12 April 1978 * private (E-1), 1 August 1978 4. The applicant accepted NJP on three occasions, as follows: * on 1 December 1976, for being derelict in his duties by failing to remain awake while on duty as barracks guard on 30 November 1976 * on 2 February 1978, for being disrespectful in language toward his superior noncommissioned officer (NCO) on 24 January 1978 * on 12 April 1978 – * for behaving with disrespect toward his superior commissioned officer on 30 March 1978 * for being disrespectful in language toward his superior NCO on 3 April 1978 5. A DA Form 3847-1 (Clinical Record Cover Sheet) and SF [Standard Form] 502 (Clinical Record – Narrative Summary), completed by an Army psychiatrist, shows the applicant was admitted to the Psychiatric Ward, U.S. Army Hospital, Fort Campbell, KY, on 4 February 1977, with a history of having taken an overdose of Mellaril, which had been prescribed for him that day in the Division Mental Health Clinic. a. He had been seen at the clinic for a number of visits with complaints of depression, secondary to marital difficulties and problems in his unit. He often had been very angry and acted out on a number of occasions toward people in his unit. b. He was diagnosed with adverse reaction to drug overdose, Mellaril; mixed character disorder, depression, acute, manifested by overdose, hopelessness; premorbid personality: immature; predisposition: routine military stress; stress: moderate; improvement: moderate; impairment: moderate. c. He was discharged from the hospital on 8 February 1977. 6. An SF 93 (Report of Medical History), completed by the applicant on 14 July 1978 as part of his separation examination, shows he reported having injured his back and neck after falling out of a helicopter in 1976 and that he had been treated (2 or 3 times) for a mental condition (nervous, temper). 7. An SF 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 14 July 1978, in pertinent part, shows in: * item 74 (Summary of Defects and Diagnoses): Severe Flat Feet * item 76 (Physical Profile): 113111 * item 77 (Examinee): Is Qualified for Separation * Item 79, the examining physician signed the form 8. On 17 July 1978, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 86, for being absent without authority from 7 June 1978 to 11 July 1978. 9. On 18 July 1978, 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 charge 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 with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) Discharge Certificate. d. He was also advised that he could submit statements in his own behalf and he elected to submit a statement in his own behalf. e. The applicant and his counsel placed their signatures on the document. f. The applicant's statement shows, in pertinent part, that he joined the Army because he was having problems at home and in school. He stated, "My first year and 11 months just wasn't too bad, but after that I just couldn't cope with it any more. I've been in trouble ever since and I just don't want any more of it. I have a nervous condition [and] bad temper. I just can't take the Army anymore." 10. The chain of command recommended approval of the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service with an UOTHC Discharge Certificate. 11. On 1 August 1978, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service, reduced him to the lowest enlisted grade, and directed that he be furnished an UOTHC Discharge Certificate. 12. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he entered active duty this period on 16 March 1976 and he was discharged on 5 September 1978 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 2 years, 4 months, and 17 days of net active service during this period. Item 21 (Time Lost) shows he had 34 days of time lost under Title 10, U.S. Code, section 972, from 7 June 1978 through 10 July 1978. 13. A review of the applicant's military personnel records failed to reveal evidence that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 14. In support of his application the applicant provides the following documents: a. seven certificates that show he: * passed the required mental, moral, and physical examinations for enlistment in the RA on 26 February 1976 * successfully completed – * Infantry Advanced Individual Training, 1 July 1976 * 50 miles of running in the "Run for Your Life 50 Mile Club" * Air Assault School, 10 December 1976 * Jungle Warfare Training Course, 18 March 1977 * was selected as the superiornumerary during Post Guard Duty on 13 June 1977 * was selected as the Brigade Supernumerary during Brigade Guard Mount on 23 May 1978 b. Oscar G. Johnson VA Medical Center, Iron Mountain, MI, letter, dated 17 February 2016, addressed to the applicant with an 8-page attachment that lists his medical problems, medications, radiology reports, allergies, laboratory results, postings, immunizations, consult requests, health summaries, progress notes, and medical package information spanning the period 22 July 2011 to 17 January 2017. c. Civilian and VA dental/medical records (21 pages) pertaining to the applicant and spanning the period from 29 April 2013 to 23 September 2015, that show, in pertinent part: (1) he had a tooth extracted due to an erupted tooth and root exposure; (2) he was diagnosed with – * chronic back and neck pain (post fall from a helicopter in 1970s) * chronic back pain, post lumbar discectomy and laminectomy * status post appendectomy * hypertension * hyperlipidemia * obesity * PTSD, related to fall from a helicopter in 1970s * chronic anxiety, related to PTSD issues * depression * erectile dysfunction * chronic obstructive pulmonary disease * allergic rhinitis (3) Additional information pertaining to the results of a review of the available medical records by a medical professional is provided in paragraph 15, below. 15. 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 the applicant is applying for upgrade of his discharge based on PTSD claiming his misconduct leading to his discharge was related to his mental health. Her review was based on the information provided by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) and the applicant (in his application with enclosures), along with available military service records. The Department of Defense (DoD) electronic medical record (AHLTA) was not reviewed as it was not in use during the applicant's time in service. b. She noted that military medical records indicate the applicant was treated by inpatient psychiatry services from 4-8 February 1977 for an adverse reaction to a drug overdose (Mellaril) and for a mixed character disorder – depression. Prior to hospitalization, he sought services in the mental health clinic for complaints of depression, secondary to marital difficulties and problems in his unit, to include instances of anger and acting out towards people his unit. The applicant expressed his desire to get out of the Army and that he was getting into trouble, could not relate to others, had no friends, and could not take the pressure the Army was putting on him. c. During his separation processing he underwent mental and physical medical examinations. A document indicated that there did not appear to be any reasonable ground to believe, at the time of his misconduct, that the applicant was mentally defective, deranged, or abnormal. The applicant noted frequent trouble sleeping, depression or excessive worry, and nervous trouble. The examining physician noted the applicant had fallen out of a helicopter and injured his back. He found the applicant qualified for service/separation. d. The post-service medical records the applicant provided reveal an urgent care hospital note for dental and jaw pain on 22 September 2015. They included a past medical history of PTSD related to chronic back and neck pain stemming from a helicopter fall in the 1970s. VA medical records, dated 17 February 2016, included a diagnosis of PTSD on the problem list, along with depression, not otherwise specified; and generalized anxiety disorder. However, VA medical records were void of information regarding the basis of PTSD, depression, or anxiety diagnoses and what impact symptoms had on the applicant's functioning. Records were also void of information regarding any service-connected diagnoses and if any conditions had received a VA disability rating. e. The clinical psychologist noted, "Based on a thorough review of available medical records, the evidence does not support [applicant's] contention that PTSD was the cause for the type of discharge received. His military record is void of specific facts and circumstances concerning events that could have contributed to a PTSD diagnosis. There is evidence for a diagnosis of depression while in service, to include an inpatient hospitalization in which he attributed his depressed mood to marital, social, and occupational stressors. Nevertheless, the presence of depression during this time in service does not mitigate his misconduct." f. The evidence shows the applicant met standards in AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) chapter 3. His medical conditions of depression and back injury were duly considered during separation processing and the conditions were deemed medically acceptable. The diagnoses of PTSD, depression, or anxiety on a VA problem list or on a report of medical history is not sufficient evidence of any major mental illness as a clinical interview, records review, and assessment of functioning are key components of a diagnosis. 16. On 15 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. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses, the punishment for any of which includes a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, may submit a request for discharge for the good of the Service. An UOTHC discharge certificate normally is appropriate for a member who is discharged for the good of the Service. However, the discharge authority may direct an honorable or general discharge, if such are merited by the member's overall record during the current enlistment. 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. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant's contends, in effect, that his UOTHC discharge should be upgraded because he endured harassment during his military service, he injured his back in fall from a helicopter, he was diagnosed with PTSD with a combined VA rating of 100%, and his personal conduct subsequent to military service. 2. Records show the applicant served on active duty from 16 March 1976 through 5 September 1978. a. There is no evidence of record that shows the applicant served in combat. b. The evidence of record shows he experienced a fall from a helicopter during military training. c. He received NJP on three occasions for being derelict in his duties, being disrespectful in language toward his superior NCO (two specifications), and behaving with disrespect toward his superior commissioned officer. d. After a prolonged period of AWOL, he voluntarily requested discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. 3. The sincerity of the applicant's comments in his statement is not in dispute. However, there is no evidence in his military records that supports his comments with respect to allegations of harassment or physical assault while in the Army. 4. During the period of service under review he was diagnosed with, in pertinent part, adverse reaction to a drug overdose (Mellaril) and mixed character disorder, depression. a. There is no evidence of record to show the applicant had a medical condition that was found to be medically unfitting during the period of service under review. b. The applicant received, in pertinent part, post-service diagnoses of PTSD, chronic anxiety, related to PTSD issues; and depression. c. The ARBA clinical psychologist found no evidence that the applicant's depression mitigated his misconduct that led to his discharge. Additionally, post-service the diagnoses of PTSD, depression, or anxiety on a VA problem list or on a report of medical history is not sufficient evidence of any major mental illness. 5. The evidence of record shows that the applicant's request for discharge UP 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. 6. The applicant's post-service conduct and contributions to veterans were considered. Post-service conduct alone is not normally a basis for upgrading the characterization of service. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160008043 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160008043 14 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2