IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 1 November 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150010271 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: 1 November 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150010271 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: 1 November 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150010271 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 general discharge to honorable. 2. The applicant states: a. His current character of service is inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in over 4 years of service with no other adverse action. He was promoted to the rank of sergeant after 21 months of service. He completed the Warrior Leadership Course and he was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal. He trained and led men into combat and his unit was one of the first units to be extended in Iraq for their efforts and achievements. His unit was awarded the Valorous Unit Award. b. His current character of service is also improper because he was discharged due to the fact that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or related conditions that he believes mitigated the misconduct that led to his discharge. On 9 August 2010, he was diagnosed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with PTSD for adjustment reaction with anxious features directly related to his military service and granted a 30-percent disability rating. c. When he got back from Iraq he lost his mind and he didn't know who he was anymore. He couldn't think straight and he kept having flashbacks. He truly didn't know how to control his anger. He felt like the whole world was against him and he just wanted to get away. He kept trying to tell his chain of command that he was losing his mind, but he was a sergeant in the infantry, so of course they told him to toughen up. He was hurt and lost and he didn't know what to do. He served his country honorably. He went to Iraq and was shot at, he completed over a 100 raids and over 100 patrols, and he led men into firefights and brought them all back home. He did what the military asked of him up to the point where he blacked out and now he knows it was because of PTSD. 3. The applicant provides a VA Rating Decision, dated 9 August 2010. 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 25 September 2003 for a period of 4 years. He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (infantryman). He arrived in Iraq on 16 August 2005. On 15 March 2006, he was honorably discharged for immediate reenlistment. He reenlisted on 16 March 2006 for 6 years. He was promoted to sergeant effective 1 July 2006. He departed Iraq on 30 November 2006. 3. On 19 February 2008, he underwent a behavioral health evaluation and he was diagnosed with a partner relational problem. The psychologist determined he had no psychiatric disease or defect that warranted disposition through medical channels. He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by his command. 4. On 31 March 2008, he was notified of his pending separation for misconduct (serious offense) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 14-12c. The unit commander cited the following reasons for his proposed separation action: a. On 18 November 2007, he was arrested and charged with kidnapping and assault in the fourth degree as a result of an incident with his wife. b. On 8 January 2008, he was arrested at Fort Greely while trying to make contact with his wife. He was charged by the Alaska State Troopers with violating the conditions of his release and he was charged by military authorities for disorderly conduct. c. On 2 February 2008, he was arrested and charged with domestic assault and property damage of less than $50.00. d. During the weekend of 1-2 March 2008, he assaulted his wife by throwing a piece of electronic equipment at her which resulted in bodily injury that required medical attention. When the Alaska State Troopers and military police attempted to contact him regarding the incident, he was nowhere to be found. e. On 3 March 2008, he missed an appointment with Trial Defense Services and missed formation. At 1545, he contacted his unit to inform them he would not be returning to Fort Wainwright and that he intended to leave the state via Canada. On 4 March 2008, he was placed in an absent without leave status. 5. On 31 March 2008, he waived his right to consult with counsel. 6. On 1 April 2008, discharge proceedings were initiated against him. 7. On 3 April 2008, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of a general discharge. 8. He was discharged under honorable conditions on 10 April 2008 for misconduct (serious offense) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c. He completed a total of 4 years, 6 months, and 16 days of creditable active service. 9. There is no evidence showing the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD prior to his discharge. 10. On 3 June 2009, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an honorable discharge. 11. He provided a VA Rating Decision, dated 9 August 2010, showing service connection was granted for adjustment reaction with anxious features (claimed as PTSD) with a disability rating of 30 percent effective 11 April 2008. 12. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from an Army Review Boards Agency clinical psychologist who stated: a. The applicant served on active duty from 25 September 2003 to 10 April 2008 as an infantryman. He deployed from 16 August 2005 to 30 November 2006 in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. b. He requested an upgrade of his discharge based on PTSD, claiming his misconduct leading to an early separation from the Army was related to his mental health. He contends his discharge was inequitable and improper because he was suffering from PTSD, didn't know how to control his anger, felt the whole world was against him, and he just needed to get away. c. The active duty electronic medical records revealed behavioral health treatment for marital problems and an adjustment disorder with disturbance of emotion. Despite documentation of a Combat Infantryman Badge indicating some exposure to a traumatic event or exposure to a life-threatening situation during his time in service, his medical records are void of a PTSD diagnosis or complaint of PTSD symptoms. d. A VA letter, dated 9 August 2010, indicated that a service connection for an adjustment reaction with anxious features (claimed as PTSD) was granted and he was assigned a disability rating of 30 percent. He did not meet criteria for PTSD due to sleep problems, low appetite and energy, occasional panic attacks, and feelings of anger, anxiety, depression and irritability, being better attributed to a diagnosis of adjustment reaction with anxious features. e. Based on a thorough review of available medical records, there is no evidence he met the criteria for PTSD during his military service. The presence of an adjustment reaction with anxious features or potentially unrecognized PTSD during the time period of misconduct for being absent without leave, does not explain or directly mitigate his actions leading to a separation under chapter 14 for misconduct. f. His records are void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning events that could have contributed to a PTSD service-connected discharge from the Army. Without medical records or other service documents indicating exposure to trauma and its impact on functioning, an advisory opinion about him meeting criteria for PTSD and whether this diagnosis mitigated his misconduct cannot be rendered. 13. A copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for comment and/or rebuttal. He responded and stated: a. He currently has a pending claim for PTSD with the VA for a rating increase and also for combat trauma. b. There is a reason for the more than 22 veteran suicides a day. The advisory opinion he was sent regarding his service-connected disabilities is part of it. There is a huge disconnection between becoming a civilian and leaving active duty military service. You would think it would be obvious to anyone looking in from the outside. He was a distinguished Soldier and never had any misconduct. Then suddenly he went to Iraq and came back and was absent without leave. He questions whether it isn't obvious that he lost his mind and was suffering from PTSD. c. The advisory official stated he was an infantryman who deployed to Iraq, but the letter states there is no record to indicate that he experienced anything traumatic in Iraq. The very nature of his job was traumatic. He was personally involved in several firefights and his convoy was hit by several improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Some of the incidents were caught on camera and posted on YouTube. The Cable News Network and Columbia Broadcasting System have diagnosed him with PTSD. d. The entire world has heard his stories of attempted suicide and his back-to-back dreams about being hit by an IED. He has survivor's guilt for a friend who was shot and killed in Iraq. He guesses the VA will diagnose him after he has committed suicide and the Board will grant his rightly deserved honorable discharge after his death and place it on his casket as they do every other Soldier. e. The advisory official states he received the Combat Infantryman Badge. His 16 straight months at war is minimized by his 2-month failure to properly transition back into society. He did not receive any transitioning help to control his anger, depression, anxiety, and PTSD. He was trained for combat, but not trained to return. He slept inside Iraqi houses on "silent kill teams," he was involved in over 100 raids and 100 dismounted and mounted patrols, he was involved in multiple firefights, and he was hit by 17 IEDs. He saw things that will haunt him for the rest of his life. He always conducted himself with integrity and honor. Properly diagnosed or not, he has PTSD. Besides what he personally experienced, the very nature of his military occupational specialty by itself is enough to give anyone PTSD for the rest of his or her life. He struggles everyday with who he was before the war and who he was during the war. Back-to-back traumatic events play in his head weekly. He is not asking the Board to "give" him an honorable discharge; he "earned" an honorable discharge. He doesn't want one isolated incident to define his whole career. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from active duty. a. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense. The issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. b. 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. 2. Title 38, U.S. Code, sections 310 and 331, permit the VA to award compensation for a medical condition that was incurred in or aggravated by active military service. The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service. The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned. Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual's medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge, or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency. 3. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), chapter 7, addresses trauma and stress or related disorders. The DSM is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and provides standard criteria and common language for classification of mental disorders. In 1980, the APA added PTSD to the third edition of its DSM nosologic classification scheme. Although controversial when first introduced, the PTSD diagnosis has filled an important gap in psychiatric theory and practice. From a 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 fifth edition of the DSM 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 criterion assesses functioning, and the eighth criterion clarifies symptoms as not attributable to a substance or co-occurring medical condition. a. Criterion A – Stressor: The person was exposed to: death, threatened death, actual or threatened serious injury, or actual or threatened sexual violence, as follows (one required): (1) direct exposure; (2) witnessing, in person; (3) indirectly, by learning that a close relative or close friend was exposed to trauma. If the event involved actual or threatened death, it must have been violent or accidental; or (4) repeated or extreme indirect exposure to aversive details of the event(s), usually in the course of professional duties (e.g., first responders collecting body parts, professionals repeatedly exposed to details of child abuse). This does not include indirect non-professional exposure through electronic media, television, movies, or pictures. b. Criterion B – Intrusion Symptoms: The traumatic event is persistently re-experienced in the following way(s) (one required): (1) recurrent, involuntary, and intrusive memories; (2) traumatic nightmares; (3) dissociative reactions (e.g., flashbacks) which may occur on a continuum from brief episodes to complete loss of consciousness; (4) intense or prolonged distress after exposure to traumatic reminders; or (5) marked physiologic reactivity after exposure to trauma-related stimuli. c. Criterion C – Avoidance: Persistent effortful avoidance of distressing trauma-related stimuli after the event (one required): (1) trauma-related thoughts or feelings or (2) trauma-related external reminders (e.g., people, places, conversations, activities, objects, or situations). d. Criterion D – Negative Alterations in Cognitions and Mood: Negative alterations in cognitions and mood that began or worsened after the traumatic event (two required): (1) inability to recall key features of the traumatic event (usually dissociative amnesia; not due to head injury, alcohol, or drugs); (2) persistent (and often distorted) negative beliefs and expectations about oneself or the world (e.g., "I am bad," "The world is completely dangerous"); (3) persistent distorted blame of self or others for causing the traumatic event or for resulting consequences; (4) persistent negative trauma-related emotions (e.g., fear, horror, anger, guilt, or shame); (5) markedly diminished interest in (pre-traumatic) significant activities, feeling alienated from others (e.g., detachment or estrangement); and (6) constricted affect, persistent inability to experience positive emotions. e. Criterion E – Alterations in Arousal and Reactivity: Trauma-related alterations in arousal and reactivity that began or worsened after the traumatic event (two required): (1) irritable or aggressive behavior, (2) self-destructive or reckless behavior, (3) hypervigilance, (4) exaggerated startle response, (5) problems in concentration, and (6) sleep disturbance; f. Criterion F – Duration: Persistence of symptoms (in Criteria B, C, D, and E) for more than 1 month. g. Criterion G – Functional Significance: Significant symptom-related distress or functional impairment (e.g., social, occupational). h. Criterion H – Exclusion: Disturbance is not due to medication, substance use, or other illness. 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 under other than honorable conditions (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 Soldiers' 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 a 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. On 3 September 2014 in view of the foregoing information, 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 applicants' 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 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 records 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. BCM/NRs 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. BCM/NRs 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. Although the applicant contends he was suffering from PTSD because of his service in Iraq, there is no evidence of record and he provided no evidence showing he was diagnosed with PTSD prior to his discharge. A clinical psychologist reviewed his records and determined there was no evidence showing he met the criteria for PTSD during his military service. 2. Although he contends he was rated 30-percent disabled for PTSD by the VA, he was actually diagnosed by the VA with an adjustment reaction with anxious features claimed as PTSD. He served in Iraq from 16 August 2005 to 30 November 2006. The VA rates veterans post-service and awards compensation based on a veteran's social or industrial inability to adapt after military service. The rating decision by the VA does not demonstrate an error or injustice on the part of the Army. The VA, operating under its own policies and regulations, assigns service-connected disability ratings based on specific criteria. 3. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for the authority and reason for his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct. The fact that he received a general discharge under honorable conditions indicates his commander carefully considered his entire record of service, to include his deployment history. 4. His administrative separation for misconduct was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. 5. His contentions were carefully considered. However, his record of service during his last enlistment included serious domestic assault incidents while holding the rank of sergeant. 6. There is no evidence that PTSD was a causative factor in the misconduct that led to his discharge. After carefully weighing his diagnosis of an adjustment reaction with anxious features against the severity of his misconduct, there is insufficient mitigating evidence to support upgrading the character of his service to honorable. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150010271 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150010271 12 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2