IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 26 April 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150000451 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: 26 April 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150000451 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: 26 April 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150000451 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 an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) characterization of service. 2. The applicant states: a. The Army Board of Correction to Military Records (ABCMR) needs to investigate the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to find his medical files to show he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). b. He feels that his PTSD was caused by his “short but active stint” in the Army, which he still has to this day. c. He claims he was assaulted by his immediate drill sergeant by being knocked down and kicked in the head in basic training. d. He was coached by the Army into signing papers for which he was given an UOTHC discharge. e. He has made attempts to get his VA medical records, but to no avail. f. He claims that his records will reflect that he was seen by psychiatric doctors around October 1979. His PTSD diagnosis was unrecognized at the time of his discharge. g. He has sent VA consent forms for ABCMR to acquire his medical files. 3. The applicant provides: * DD Form 214 * VA Form 21-4142 (Authorization and Consent to Release Information to the VA) * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States) * Self-authored letters, dated 25 June 2015 and 22 July 2015 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. On 8 December 1978, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years. 3. His record contains and he submitted: a. Decisional documents from ABCMR Docket Number AR20140005641. b. VA release authorization for medical records. c. Separation documents. d. A DD Form 458, dated 17 July 1979, that shows a court-martial charge was preferred against him for one specification of being AWOL from 5 April to 14 July 1979. 4. On 20 July 1979, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and he was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him. 5. The applicant submitted a voluntary written request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial. In his request for discharge, he indicated he understood that by requesting discharge he was admitting guilt to the charge against him or of a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of a discharge under other than honorable conditions. He acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request was approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA, and he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws. 6. The applicant submitted a statement on his own behalf wherein he indicated that he was 18 years old, had a 10th grade education and chose to get out of the Army due to: • his sister dying • he and his family trying to stick together • his parents getting old • his not being able to adjust to Army life • it (Army life) would have been alright if he had joined when he was twenty 7. The applicant's unit commander subsequently recommended approval with the issuance of an UOTHC Discharge Certificate. 8. On 27 August 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He also directed the applicant's reduction to the lowest enlisted grade and that he be issued an UOTHC Discharge Certificate. 9. On 27 August 1979, the applicant was discharged accordingly. He completed 4 months and 11 days of total creditable active service with lost time during the period 5 March to 13 July 1979 (131 days). 10. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 11. His medical records are void of any evidence, nor does he provide any evidence to show a diagnosis of PTSD. 12. In response to a request by the ABCMR requesting additional information regarding his PTSD, the applicant submitted a letter requesting an extension to obtain his VA medical records. His extension was granted; however, he has not provided any medical documentation supporting his claim of PTSD. 13. On 25 June 2015, the applicant submitted another letter stating: a. He was experiencing a lot of things that he never had gone through, so to cope with sleeplessness, panic attacks, mood swings, and anxiety, he used a lot of drugs and alcohol to self-medicate. In order to deal with some of his personal problems he had to go through treatment to include a mental health in-patient center for depression and attempted suicide. b. He has been on and off medication for the past 30 years in an attempt to feel normal again, but without the proper diagnosis, he had been receiving improper treatment. 14. On 22 July 2015, the applicant submitted another letter stating: a. He was given a “bumbs [sic] rush” out of the military due to his personal problems with his ill wife. b. He feels that his files should completely clarify his claims of PTSD due to his service training, as well as his being subjected to the “gas chamber” training that caused bronchial damage and is noted on his medical files. c. In June 2015, as an inmate at the Grafton Correctional Institution mental department, his doctor stated that his mental issues, though severe, are directly related to his experience in the Army. The applicant does not provide any documentary evidence to support his claim. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 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 at any time after the charges have been preferred. A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate. b. Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge (HD) is given when the quality of the Soldier’s service has generally met standards of acceptable conduct and duty performance. c. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge (GD) 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 HD. 2. 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." 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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 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. 6. 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. 7. 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? 8. Although 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 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. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends that he now has PTSD due to a traumatic time in the military and that it was a contributing factor for his misconduct; however, there is no medical documentation nor does he provide any to show a diagnosis of PTSD. 2. He was advised he could be issued an UOTHC discharge and that he could submit any statements he desired in his own behalf. He acknowledged he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits, may be ineligible for many or all VA benefits, and may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws. 3. He was charged with an offense punishable by a punitive discharge. He consulted with counsel, voluntarily admitted guilt to the offense or lesser offenses included, and requested discharge in lieu of court-martial. In the absence of evidence to the contrary it presumed his request for discharge was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. 4. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for discharge were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate when a member is separated under the provisions of chapter 10. There is no evidence of procedural or other errors that would have jeopardized his rights. 5. Due to the seriousness of the charges to which he admitted guilt, his service is determined to be unsatisfactory. Therefore, there is no basis on which to upgrade his discharge to general, under honorable conditions. 6. The Board does not upgrade a characterization of service solely to make an applicant eligible for benefits. Each case is considered on its own merits. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150006999 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150000451 8 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2