SAMR-RB 18 January 2017 MEMORANDUM FOR Case Management Division, US Army Review Boards Agency, 251 18th Street South, Suite 385, Arlington, VA 22202-3531 SUBJECT: Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings for AR20150011899 1. Reference the attached Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings, dated 22 November 2016, in which the Board members unanimously recommended denial of the applicant's request. 2. I have reviewed the findings, conclusions, and Board member recommendations. I find there is sufficient evidence to grant relief. Therefore, under the authority of Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, I direct that all Department of the Army Records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing the applicant a DD Form 214 showing his characterization of service as "General, Under Honorable Conditions." 3. Request necessary administrative action be taken to effect the correction of records as indicated no later than 18 May 2017. Further, request that the individual concerned and counsel, if any, as well as any Members of Congress who have shown interest be advised of the correction and that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records be furnished a copy of the correspondence. BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: ­ BOARD DATE: 22 November 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150011899 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 BOARD DATE: 22 November 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150011899 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records set forth in Docket Number AR20110005863 on 13 October 2011. _____________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: 22 November 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150011899 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 reconsideration of his previous requests for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to his Korean War service. At the time, he suffered a complete breakdown that resulted in his hospitalization. He was discharged from the Army 30 days after his release from the hospital. He feels his discharge should be upgraded because he is currently rated as 100 percent service-connected disabled by the Department of Veterans Affairs with a 30 percent rating for PTSD. 3. The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), for the period ending on 11 July 1961, and a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in two previous considerations of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABMCR) in Docket Number AR20100008011 on 14 October 2010 and Docket Number AR20110005863 on 13 October 2011. 2. Based on the applicant's new evidence, his case warrants reconsideration by the Board. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 19 October 1949 and he held military occupational specialty (MOS) 3603 (Antiaircraft Artillery Cannoneer). He served in Korea from 19 July 1950 to 22 May 1951. He was honorably discharged on 18 October 1952. He completed 3 years of active service and 10 months and 5 days of foreign service. 4. He enlisted in the RA on 5 July 1956 and he held MOS 763.10 (Ordnance Supply Specialist). He served in Germany from 19 August 1956 to 25 November 1957. He was honorably discharged on 10 April 1959 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment. He completed 2 years, 9 months, and 6 days of active service and 1 year, 3 months, and 6 days of foreign service. 5. He reenlisted in the RA on 11 April 1959 and continued to hold MOS 763.10. 6. His record contains the following: a. Standard Form (SF) 89 (Report of Medical History), dated 15 December 1960, wherein he indicated he was in good health and he was taking no medication. He also indicated that he had depression and worried a great deal with pain or pressure in his chest. He also indicated his wife had been seriously ill for the past 6 months. b. SF 88 (Report of Medical Examination) showing he underwent an examination on 2 May 1961 for the purpose of separation. The form noted no psychiatric disease was demonstrated during the examination with no other significant medical or surgical history. The examining physician noted that the applicant worried a lot and his wife had been seriously ill for the past 6 months. The examiner denied any other significant medical or surgical history. He was found qualified for separation. c. A DD Form 214 showing he was discharged in pay grade E-1 on 11 July 1961 under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-208 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unfitness) and assigned separation program number (SPN) 28F (established pattern of showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts). His character of service was undesirable. He completed 2 years, 3 months, and 1 day of active service this period. This form does not provide a narrative reason for his separation. The highest rank he attained was private first class/pay grade E-3 appointed on 27 September 1956. d. A determination as to character of discharge memorandum conducted under the provisions of Public Law 85-848, dated 1 September 1961, stating the reason for the applicant's undesirable discharge was an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts from April 1959 to the date of his discharge. The evidence showed he lied to his Army superiors and to creditors relative to the location of merchandise in order to prevent repossession. It was also indicated that he violated the law by removing mortgaged property from the State without permission and selling the mortgaged property. Records showed he was counseled by his superiors to no avail. The records did not show any valid reason for his failure to pay his debts. 7. He provides a VA Rating Decision, dated 25 April 2014, showing, among other diagnoses, that he was found 30 percent service-connected for PTSD based on his Korean Conflict service. His diagnosis was combat incurred for PTSD with depressive disorder, not otherwise specified (NOS). The initial decision was rendered on 25 June 2008. His combined VA evaluation and compensation for all his diagnoses is 100 percent service-connected effective 27 October 2010. 8. The ABCMR denied two previous applications wherein he petitioned for a discharge upgrade. His first request was based on personal reasons (pride) and his second request was based on the fact that he was never absent without leave and financial reasons led to his separation. The Board found no mitigating evidence to grant him the requested relief in October 2010 and no evidence showing he was experiencing financial hardship that contributed to the misconduct that led to his discharge during its October 2011 deliberations. 9. On 25 September 2016, an advisory opinion was provided by the Staff Psychiatrist, Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA), who stated: a. The applicant contends he had PTSD during his time in the service based on his Korean Conflict experience and that was the reason for his misconduct. b. The ARBA psychiatrist was asked to determine if the applicant met the criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD at the time of his discharge from the Army. Documentation reviewed included the applicant's ABCMR application, a VA Rating Decision, and his remaining military personnel records (some of his personnel records were destroyed in a fire). No military or civilian medical records are available for review. c. A review of the applicant's VA documentation shows he is rated 30 percent service-connected for PTSD with depressive disorder NOS. A review of his military records confirmed he did complete a combat tour of duty in Korea. However, there was no documentation in either his military personnel records of any symptoms consistent with PTSD occurring during his military service. In an SF 89 completed by the applicant on 15 December 1961, he described his present health as "Good." He indicated in the "Review of Symptoms" that he had problems with "excessive worry." In his SF 88, dated 15 December 1960, the examining physician also noted that the applicant "worried a great deal and his wife had been seriously ill the past 6 months." The applicant indicated in his most recent application to the ABCMR that he was hospitalized for 30 days due to a "complete breakdown" prior to his discharge from the Army in 1961. Medical records documenting this hospitalization are not available for review. d. There was no indication in his military record that he failed to meet military medical retention standards in accordance with AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3 and provisions set forth in AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) that were applicable to the applicant's era of service. e. Based on the information available for review at this time, there is insufficient evidence to determine if there was a nexus between PTSD or any other behavioral health condition and the misconduct which led to the applicant's discharge from the Army. The lack of medical documentation regarding the applicant's hospitalization just prior to discharge and the lack of information regarding the nature of his misconduct (only the separation code is available) makes it impossible to determine if the applicant had a mitigating behavioral health condition (PTSD) for the offenses which led to his separation from the Army. 10. The advisory opinion was provided to the applicant on 22 August 2016 for acknowledgement/rebuttal. In his response, dated 26 October 2016, the applicant provided no rebuttal/statements; however, he indicated on the letter that he had more records if the Board needed them. REFERENCES: 1. AR 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness. The regulation provided for the discharge of individuals by reason of unfitness with an undesirable discharge when it had been determined that an individual’s military record was characterized by one or more of the following: frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities; sexual perversion; drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit forming narcotic drugs or marijuana; an established pattern for shirking; or an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts. 2. AR 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), currently in effect, states: a. Paragraph 3-7a – an honorable discharge was a separation with honor. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate. b. Paragraph 3-7b – a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable condition. When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 3. AR 635-5 (Personnel Separations – Separations Forms) prescribed forms to be used in the separation of Army personnel. The version of the regulation in effect at the time of the applicant's discharge specified that the following reasons for discharge would not be stated in words on the DD Form 214: unsuitability, inaptitude, unfitness, misconduct; homosexual, elimination or resignation in lieu thereof; resignation for the good of the service, and any other reason involving mental or moral issues upon which the discharge of the individual may be predicated. 4. AR 635-8 (Separation Processing and Documents) states each block of the DD Form 214 must have an entry. When data is not applicable, enter "NA," "NONE" or hyphens, as appropriate. 5. On 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards and Service BCMR/NR to carefully considered the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical consideration, and mitigating factors when taking actions on applications from former service members administratively discharged and who had 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. In these cases, PTSD was not recognized as a diagnosis at the time of service and, in many cases, diagnoses were not made until decades after service was completed. Quite often, however, the records of service members who served before PTSD was recognized, do not contain substantive information concerning medical conditions in either Service treatment records or personnel records. Liberal consideration would also be given in cases where civilian providers confer diagnoses of PTSD or PTSD-related conditions, when case records contained narratives that supported symptomatology at the time of service, or when any other evidence which could reasonably indicate PTSD or a PTSD-related disorder existed at the time of discharge which might had mitigated the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable condition characterization of service. DISCUSSION: 1. The available evidence shows the applicant's 1961 discharge was based on his established pattern of failing to pay just debts under the provisions of AR 635-208. He was discharged with an undesirable characterization of service. 2. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that his administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the time, with no procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights. 3. Current standards provide for liberal consideration in cases where civilian providers confer diagnoses of PTSD or PTSD-related health conditions, when case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service, or when any other evidence which could reasonably indicate PTSD or a PTSD-related disorder existed at the time of discharge which might have mitigated the misconduct. His VA service-connection for PTSD is noted. 4. The ARBA staff psychiatrist found there is insufficient evidence to determine if there was a nexus between PTSD or any other behavioral health condition and the misconduct which led to the applicant's discharge from the Army. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150011899 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150011899 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2