BOARD DATE: 18 October 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009204 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: 18 October 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009204 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 to show that he was discharged on 16 May 1961 with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions, and showing that upon discharge he held the rank/grade of private/E-2 with an effective date of 12 February 1961. 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 upgrading his characterization of service to honorable. ___________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 October 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009204 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 character of service from under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to honorable. 2. He states he was a good Soldier, but he drank too much. He was drafted in 1959 at the age of 18. He got involved with older men who drank a lot. He joined the men and quickly became an alcoholic. He says he did many things that he is not proud of and he is very sorry for his actions. He currently sees a psychiatrist and has been hospitalized three times for depression. He started Alcoholics Anonymous in 1961 and got sober in 1967, 48 years ago. 3. He provides: * self-authored statement, dated 25 August 2015 * e-mail, dated 25 August 2015 * Congressional correspondence * two letters from psychiatric professionals * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) 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 was inducted into the Army of the United States on 2 June 1959. 3. His DA Form 24 (Service Record) shows he served in Germany from 3 November 1959 to 16 May 1961. His records do not show any significant acts or achievements during his military service. 4. Special Court-Martial Order Number 7, issued by Headquarters, Advanced Weapons Support Command, Germany, on 21 April 1960 shows he pled guilty to one specification of damaging by neglect and without authority, military property of a value of about $2,004.00 on or about 31 March 1960; one specification of operating a military vehicle while drunk, thereby causing said vehicle to be upset and damaged on or about 31 March 1960; and one specification of being found drunk while on duty as motor courier on or about 31 March 1960. a. The court sentenced him to reduction to private (PVT)/E-1, confinement at hard labor for 3 months, and forfeiture of $55.00 pay per month for 6 months. The sentence was adjudged on 18 April 1960. b. On 21 April 1960, the convening authority approved the sentence and ordered it executed but the execution of that portion adjudging confinement was suspended for 3 months. 5. Special Court-Martial Order Number 8, issued by Headquarters, Advanced Weapons Support Command, Germany, on 2 July 1960, shows the convening authority adjudged that the sentence to confinement at hard labor for 3 months was vacated and the unexecuted portion of the sentence to confinement was ordered executed. 6. Special Court-Martial Order Number 10, issued by Headquarters, Advanced Weapons Support Command, Germany, on 23 July 1960 shows the applicant pled not guilty to one specification of operating a military vehicle while drunk on or about 30 June 1960, and one specification of wrongfully appropriating a military truck on or about 30 June 1960. The court found him guilty of the specification of operating a military vehicle while drunk and sentenced him to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and forfeiture of $55.00 pay per month for 6 months. The sentence was adjudged on 15 July 1960 and approved on 23 July 1960. 7. His DA Form 24 shows he was promoted to the rank/grade of private (PVT)/E-2 on 12 February 1961. 8. On 17 March 1961, the applicant underwent a psychiatric examination. The psychiatrist diagnosed him with emotional instability reaction, chronic severe, manifested by fluctuating emotional attitudes, impulsivity, poor motivation for service and repeated conflict with authority. The psychiatrist noted that the applicant was sullen and resentful. His mood and affect were within normal limits and there was no evidence of mental illness. He was immature, impulsive, self-indulgent with poor judgment, and he had no interest in anything except drinking. He had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings. The psychiatrist recommended separation under the provision of Army Regulation 635-208 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unfitness) for unfitness. 9. On 10 April 1961, the applicant’s immediate commander recommended the applicant appear before a board of officers and be considered for elimination from the service in accordance with Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness. The immediate commander remarked that the applicant made no effort to adjust to military service; he was poorly motivated, emotionally immature, and completely irrational. His uniform and appearance were one of the worst his commander ever saw, and he could not work at headquarters because he was not cleared. His affinity for alcohol was severe and he was frequently drunk during morning formations and during his lunch hour. His conduct and efficiency ratings were unsatisfactory and all efforts to motivate him were in vain. 10. On 10 April 1961, the applicant received counseling wherein his commander advised him of the basis of the recommended action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208. He signed the statement acknowledging that his commander afforded him the opportunity to consult with counsel, but he declined the opportunity. He also waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived personal appearance before a board of officers, and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 11. On 27 April 1961, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 and directed that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 12. On 16 May 1961, he was discharged accordingly. His DD Form 214 shows he received an under other than honorable conditions character of service. It also shows he completed 1 year, 4 months, and 17 days of creditable active military service with 215 days of lost time. 13. On 18 February 1972, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s petition for an upgrade of his discharge and determined his discharge was proper. 14. On 9 December 2008 after an application to the ABCMR, the ABCMR denied his request to upgrade his discharge due to his failure to provide evidence showing his discharge was unjust or inequitable. 15. A senior psychotherapist with the Aurora Behavioral Health Services at Sinia Samaritan Medical Center provided a letter for the applicant on an unknown date. The psychotherapist states he has been seeing the applicant since early spring and based on symptoms taken during clinical interviews, he opined the applicant had a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depression. His PTSD is in relation to an event he witnessed while serving in the U.S. Army. He states the applicant will continue treatment for PTSD and depression for the near future. 16. On 16 September 2016, a clinical psychologist, Murphy Urban and Associates Psychological Services, provided the applicant's treatment summary. He states he provides bimonthly psychological treatment to the applicant due to his of history of depression symptoms, anger dyscontrol, paranoid ideation, and past alcohol abuse. The applicant discussed witnessing a fellow Soldier commit suicide while he was serving in the U.S. Army and he explained that afterwards, the applicant had significant alcohol abuse, impulsive behavior, and labile moods. There was also a history of several inpatient hospitalizations for psychiatric care due to major depression, psychosis, and suicidal ideation. The applicant reported a history of psychosis with hallucinations. His current diagnoses are schizoaffective disorder, depressive type, and PTSD. There are also some indications of a mild neurocognitive impairment likely related to Alzheimer's disease. 17. On 24 August 2016, the ABCMR obtained an advisory opinion from a clinical psychologist, Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA), who states there is evidence that the applicant met the criteria for PTSD during his military service. a. She stated the applicant's indiscipline led to his discharge for unfitness and that his request for a discharge upgrade was previously denied by the ABCMR on 9 December 2008. However, upon resubmission, the applicant included documentation from a behavioral health provider from Sinai Samaritan Medical Center in Milwaukee, WI, indicating that he met the criteria for diagnoses of PTSD and depression stemming from a traumatic event he witnessed while on active duty; the suicide of a friend. b. The ARBA clinical psychologist states her opinion is based on the information provided by the Board as the Department of Defense (DoD) electronic medical record (AHLTA) was not in use at the time of his service. Given that PTSD was not recognized as a diagnosis during the applicant's time in service, it is unlikely that he or anyone else recognized and attributed his symptoms of depression, alcohol abuse, and misconduct to PTSD. His misconduct and heavy drinking appear to be largely related to witnessing a traumatic event. Aurora Behavioral Health Services at Sinai Samaritan Medical Center where the applicant received outpatient treatment provided supporting medical documentation regarding diagnoses of PTSD and depression. Additionally, the applicant reported a history of three hospitalizations for depression and continued sobriety since 1968. c. Based on a thorough review of the available medical records, there is evidence that the applicant met the criteria for PTSD during his military service. Despite sobriety from alcohol, PTSD symptoms have continued to affect his mood and functioning resulting in three hospitalizations for depression and continued outpatient treatment. Given his impairment and need for continued supportive services, it is likely that PTSD mitigated the misconduct that led to his separation from active duty. 18. On 9 September 2016, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the advisory opinion and stated he felt that the ARBA Clinical Psychologist correctly accessed his troubles. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the policy and procedures for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness, including undesirable habits and traits of character. It provided that a board of officers would convene for the elimination of enlisted personnel having undesirable habits and traits of character. A recommendation for discharge because of undesirability would be made in the case of an enlisted person who repeatedly committed petty offenses not warranting trial by court-martial. When discharged because of undesirable habits or traits of character, an Undesirable Discharge Certificate was normally considered appropriate. 2. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. 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. 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. 3. 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." 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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? 9. 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. At the time of the applicant's discharge, PTSD was unrecognized by the medical community and DOD. However, both the medical community and DOD now have a more thorough understanding of PTSD and its potential to serve as a causative factor in a Soldier's misconduct when the condition is not diagnosed and treated in a timely fashion. 2. A senior psychotherapist with the Aurora Behavioral Health diagnosed the applicant with PTSD and major depression. He contends that the applicant's PTSD is in relation to an event he witnessed while serving in the U.S. Army. A clinical psychologist at Murphy Urban and Associates Psychological Services recalls the applicant's discussion wherein he witnessed a fellow Soldier commit suicide while he was serving in the U.S. Army. A clinical psychologist from ARBA states that the applicant's misconduct and heavy drinking appear to be largely related to witnessing a traumatic event. Based on thorough review of the available medical records, she concluded there is evidence that the applicant met the criteria for PTSD during his military service. 3. His disciplinary history shows he was convicted by two special courts-martial for damaging military property, two specifications of operating a military vehicle while drunk and being found drunk while on duty as motor courier. A psychiatric professional concluded that his PTSD was a causative factor of his disciplinary infractions that ultimately led to the discharge. 4. 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. 5. A decision to grant relief by upgrading the character of his service to general under honorable conditions would also entail restoration of his rank/grade to PVT/E-2 with an effective date of 12 February 1961. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150009204 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150009204 9 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2