IN THE CASE OF BOARD DATE: 20 October 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009000 BOARD VOTE: ___x_____ ___x___ ___x____ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 October 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009000 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing the applicant's DD Form 214 to show the characterization of service as "general, under honorable conditions." _____________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: 20 October 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009000 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 discharge to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. 2. The applicant states he suffered from psychosis and depression. He has been diagnosed by a civilian doctor and he would now like to file for medical benefits through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). He knows he was suffering from anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) when he returned from Desert Storm. He had planned to retire from the military but things started to crash. In addition to his depression, he found out his wife was cheating on him. He requested leave, but his first sergeant/pay grade (1SG)/E-6 would not discuss it with the commander. The 1SG was jealous of the Desert Storm veterans because they had more ribbons than he, especially the Combat Infantryman Badge. 3. The applicant provides: * Award orders for the Combat Infantryman Badge * Award orders for the Army Commendation Medal with "V" Device * Memorandum verifying his service in Southwest Asia * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Selected service medical records * Post-service psychiatric evaluation CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 January 1986 and he held military occupational specialty 11M (Fighting Vehicle Infantryman). 3. He served through a reenlistment, in a variety of Stateside or overseas assignments, including Southwest Asia from 3 January to 19 May 1991. 4. The complete facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge action are not available for review with this case. However, his record contains a DD Form 214 that shows: a. He was discharged on 16 June 1992 under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, for the good of the service - in lieu of court-martial, with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions. b. He completed 6 years, 3 months, and 4 days of active service. He also had lost time from 22 February to 27 April 1992 (possibly due to being absent without leave (AWOL)). c. He held the rank/grade of private/E-1 with an effective date of rank of 28 May 1992. c. He was awarded or authorized the Southwest Asia Service Medal with 3 bronze service stars, Army Commendation Medal with "V" Device, Army Achievement Medal (1st Oak Leaf Cluster), Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar, Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar, Kuwait Liberation Medal, and the Combat Infantryman Badge. 5. It is unknown if he was reduced from SGT/E-5 as a result of nonjudicial punishment, court-martial conviction, or as a result of his separation action. Likewise, it is unknown what rank he held when he requested voluntary separation. 6. There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitation. 7. He provides: a. Permanent Orders 37-21, issued by Headquarters, 3rd Armored Division (Spearhead) on 6 April 1991, awarding him the Combat Infantryman Badge for service from 24 February to 28 February 1991. His rank is shown as specialist four/pay grade (SP4)/E-4. b. Memorandum, dated 23 May 1991, issued by Headquarters, 5th Battalion, 5th Cavalry, 3rd Armored Division, confirming his service in Southwest Asia from 3 January 1991 to 19 May 1991. His rank is shown as sergeant/ pay grade (SGT)/E-5. c. Permanent Orders 37-07, issued by Headquarters, 1st Brigade, 3rd Armored Division, on 13 July 1991, awarding him the Army Commendation Medal with "V" Device, for heroism from 24 February to 4 March 1991. His rank is shown as SGT. d. Selected service medical records and a post-service psychiatric evaluation. 8. The Board forwarded the applicant's documentation to the Office of The Surgeon General (OTSG) for review. An advisory official rendered an advisory opinion on 3 September 2016 citing the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition; AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), with revisions, dated 4 August 2011; and AR 635-200, dated 6 September 2011. The OTSG official ((Chief, Behavioral Health Division, Health Care Delivery, Medical Command) stated: a. The applicant entered active duty on 3 January 1986 and was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 16 June 1992, in accordance with AR 635-200, chapter 10 (For the Good of the Service – In Lieu of Court-Martial). He was deployed to Desert Storm from January to May 1991. b. In February 2015, he requested that the Board upgrade his discharge to honorable. OTSG was asked to determine "if there is a nexus between the behavioral health (BH) information contained in the documentation and the misconduct that resulted in the applicant’s discharge." This opinion is based solely on the information provided by the Board as the DOD electronic medical record (AHLTA) was not in use at the time of his service. c. Psychiatric documentation indicates the applicant received services through LifeSkills, Incorporated, a community non-profit organization, from 2003 to 2009 for the following diagnoses: alcohol dependence and PTSD related to childhood sexual abuse and major depressive disorder, recurrent, no psychosis. He was admitted to Park Place Recovery Center, a short-term residential treatment facility for alcohol, where he reported symptoms of PTSD in 2003. It is noted that once he got sober and on Lexapro his symptoms decreased in intensity and eventually remitted. The next BH record is a psychiatric evaluation dated 17 November 2009 when he presented with auditory hallucinations that had begun two weeks earlier and were interfering with his sleep. A follow-up note on 30 December 2009 indicated the voices had stopped. He reported he stopped treatment because he could not afford it. d. There is no documentation available that shows he was experiencing PTSD symptoms at the time he went AWOL. Instead, he asserts that he found out his wife was cheating and requested leave, which was never forwarded to his commanding officer. Consequently, he may have experienced symptoms of adjustment disorder which may have been a mitigating factor in the misconduct that led to his under other than honorable conditions discharge. 8. The applicant was provided a copy of this advisory opinion to give him an opportunity to submit a rebuttal and/or any additional comments. He did not respond. REFERENCES: 1. AR 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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 under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. a. Paragraph 1-14 stated that when a member was to be discharged under other than honorable conditions, the convening authority would direct an immediate reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. b. Paragraph 3-7b states 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. 2. PTSD can occur after someone goes through a traumatic event like combat, assault, or disaster. Military Sexual Trauma and Stalking are stressors that could lead to PTSD. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) publishes the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) 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, DOD acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge. It is also acknowledged that in some cases this undiagnosed condition of PTSD may have been a mitigating factor in the Soldier's misconduct, which served as a catalyst for their discharge. Research has also shown that misconduct stemming from PTSD is typically based upon a spur of the moment decision resulting from temporary lapse in judgment; therefore, PTSD is not a likely cause for either premeditated misconduct or misconduct that continues for an extended period. 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 under other than honorable conditions 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 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 under other than honorable conditions 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 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. 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’s record is void of the complete facts and circumstances that led to his voluntary discharge. However, his record contains a DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged on 16 June 1992 under the provisions of chapter 10 of AR 635-200, in lieu of a court-martial in the rank of private/E-1 with an effective date of rank of 28 May 1992. 2. The issuance of a discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200 required the applicant to have voluntarily, willingly, and in writing, request discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by a court-martial. 3. 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. The applicant has provided no information that would indicate the contrary. 4. Both the medical community and DOD now have a more thorough understanding of BH conditions and their potential to serve as a causative factor in a Soldier's misconduct when the condition is not diagnosed and treated in a timely fashion. Soldiers who suffered from a BH condition (adjustment disorder or PTSD) and were separated solely for misconduct subsequent to a traumatic event warrant careful consideration for the possible re-characterization of their overall service. 5. A review of the applicant's record and the evidence that he provided shows he was subjected to the ordeals of war while serving in Southwest Asia. His awards of the Combat Infantryman Badge and Army Commendation Medal for valor support his combat exposure. Additionally, his misconduct appears to have begun after his combat service. Years later and subsequent to his combat experiences, medical evidence shows he was diagnosed with a BH condition by a competent mental health professional. 6. It appears the applicant’s BH condition may have had a BH condition that mitigated the misconduct that led to the discharge. Accepting that as true would support a recommendation to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service to a general discharge under honorable conditions. The same evidence does not appear to support a conclusion that the applicant's service, in consideration of any mitigating BH conditions, met the criteria for a fully honorable discharge. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150009000 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150009000 8 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2