IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 November 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150012911 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: 17 November 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150012911 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: 17 November 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150012911 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 honorable conditions (general) to honorable. 2. The applicant states he attended and completed the Chemical Dependence Treatment Program and the Substance Use and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Program. He has remained clean and sober to this date. Also, he completed a Dual Diagnosis Treatment Program. 3. The applicant provides three Certificates of Completion. 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. After having prior service in the Army National Guard, the applicant enlisted Regular Army on 28 November 1989. The highest rank/grade he attained while serving on active duty was specialist (SPC)/E-4 on 1 December 1991. 3. His service record shows he tested positive for marijuana on 8 November 1993. 4. On 6 December 1993, his unit commander initiated a bar to reenlistment against him for testing positive on a urinalysis. The regimental commanding officer approved the bar to reenlistment on 15 December 1993. 5. He accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on 17 December 1993 for wrongfully using marijuana between on or about 8 October 1993 and 8 November 1993. 6. On 31 January 1994, he underwent a mental status evaluation administered by an Army medical doctor. The psychiatrist stated the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings and was mentally responsible. 7. On 7 February 1994, his unit commander notified him of his intent to recommend his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c(2), for misconduct – abuse of illegal drugs. The unit commander recommended the applicant's separation because he tested positive for marijuana during a Command directed unit inspection on 8 November 1993. The applicant was advised of his rights. 8. On 8 February 1994, he acknowledged notification of the separation action, consulted with legal counsel, declined consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, waived a personal appearance, and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander then recommended the applicant’s separation by separate correspondence. 9. On 24 February 1994, the separation authority directed the applicant's discharge from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph  14-12c(2), by reason of misconduct – abuse of illegal drugs with a general discharge under honorable conditions. 10. On 23 March 1994, he was discharged accordingly with a general character of service. He completed 4 years, 3 months, and 26 days of creditable active service. 11. He provided a Certificate of Completion that shows he completed the Chemical Dependence Treatment Program on 15 October 2013. 12. He provided a second Certificate of Completion that shows he completed Phase II of the Substance Use and PTSD Program during 4 March through 11 April 2014. 13. He provided a third Certificate of Completion that shows he completed the Dual Diagnosis Treatment Program on 8 June 2015. 14. On 3 October 2016, an advisory opinion was provided by a psychiatrist within the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA). The psychiatrist opined: a. The applicant was stationed in Germany for much of his service time. According to the available records, he never deployed and was never involved in active combat. b. There is no documentation in his military records showing the applicant had any interaction with Behavioral Health during his time in service. c. The applicant's military records contain no evidence showing he failed to meet medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3 or the provisions set forth in Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) that were applicable during the applicant's era of service. d. The applicant provided certificates indicating he completed treatment programs; however, there is no Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) or non-VA medical documentation diagnosing the applicant with PTSD or any other behavioral health condition. There are no medical progress notes or psychiatric evaluations provided. e. There is insufficient evidence to determine if the applicant suffered from PTSD or any other behavioral health condition while in the military. There does not appear to be a nexus between PTSD or any other boardable behavioral health condition and the misconduct which led to the applicant's separation from the Army. 15. A copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant; the applicant did not comment. 16. He did not provide any medical documentation or records to indicate that a medical professional diagnosed him with PTSD. 17. His service record does not indicate he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. An under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record. b. Paragraph 3-7a states 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. 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. 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 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 of time. 5. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and BCMs/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. 6. 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? 7. 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. a. 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. b. 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 evidence of record shows the applicant successfully completed treatment programs subsequent to his discharge. The available evidence does not show he attempted to enroll in a substance abuse program while on active duty. 2. The evidence of record shows he tested positive for marijuana and he received an Article 15 for this offense. 3. Although an UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, it appears the separation authority determined the applicant's overall service met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty to warrant a general discharge. 4. The advising psychiatrist for this case found insufficient evidence to determine if the applicant suffered from PTSD or any other behavioral health condition while in the military, and further found there does not appear to be a nexus between PTSD or any other behavioral health condition and the misconduct which led to the applicant's separation 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) AR20150012911 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150012911 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2