IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 December 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015724 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: 15 December 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015724 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 re-issuing the applicant's DD Form 214 to show the characterization of service as general, under honorable conditions and his rank/grade as sergeant/pay grade E-5 with an effective date of rank of 1 October 1987. ___________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: 15 December 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015724 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 discharge under other than honorable conditions to a general discharge under honorable conditions. 2. The applicant states because of a positive urinalysis, he was reduced from sergeant (SGT)/pay grade E-5 to private/pay grade E-1 and discharged under other honorable conditions. He thinks a total reduction and the type of discharge he received is a double punishment, considering his two honorable discharges from 1980 to 1990. He had always served in a 155 artillery firing battery as a cannon crewman and he moved up to section chief during the Gulf War. a. During the Gulf War things started to change within him. He became an angry Soldier while serving in the desert of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. He ultimately lost his section chief position due to not knowing how to cope with the stress occurring around him. He remembers getting enemy contact and things changed from that point in his career. b. After 3 days of constant shooting and moving on the enemy they stopped at the Kuwaiti airport along the side of a road where there was a lot of destruction. During this time there was a strange feeling inside of him. When they received word to leave and go back to Texas, he volunteered to stay in Saudi Arabia to help handle a support mission for his unit. He was hoping the way he felt inside would get better. c. When he returned to the States things felt strange to him. His wife at the time told him he had changed and that really hurt, he didn't know how to feel better. He was moved from his firing battery, to the headquarters division color guard. It was less demanding physically and mentally for him. Not knowing how to cope with the drastic changes in him, he sought relief by self-medicating, which was the wrong thing to do. He didn't know how to reach out for help. He had never used drugs to cope with his problems. He was tired of not feeling the way he did before the war. d. If only he had known he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at the time, or if his leaders could have connected the sudden change in him and had suggested getting help coping with the aftereffects of war, maybe he would have had a career in the Army as he had planned. 3. The applicant provides his Initial PTSD Disability Benefits Questionnaire, dated 18 November 2013, from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 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. On 1 July 1980, he enlisted in the Regular Army. He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupation specialty (MOS) 13B (Cannon Crewmember). He immediately reenlisted on 7 December 1984 and on 17 November 1989. He was honorable discharged on 6 December 1984 and on 16 November 1989. 3. The applicant was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal for the following periods of service: * 1 July 1980 - 30 June 1983 (1st Award) * 1 July 1983 - 30 June 1986 (2nd Award) * 1 July 1986 - 30 June 1989 (3rd Award) 4. On 1 October 1987, the applicant was promoted to SGT. 5. The applicant was awarded the Army Achievement Medal for the following periods: * 23 November 1987 - 13 January 1988 for meritorious achievement * 9 August 1988 - 23 August 1988 for meritorious achievement * 27 April 1987 - 18 April 1990 for meritorious service 6. On 6 June 1990, the applicant was assigned to Battery B, 1st Battalion, 3rd Field Artillery at Fort Hood, TX. He was deployed to Saudi Arabia from 12 October 1990 - 20 April 1991. 7. The applicant's separation processing package was not available for review. 8. On 6 April 1992, the applicant was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) as a private, pay grade E-1, with an effective date of pay grade as 27 February 1992. He completed 11 years, 9 months, and 6 days of net active service that was characterized as under other than honorable conditions. There is no time lost shown on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). 9. 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 limitations. 10. The applicant provided his VA Initial PTSD Disability Benefits Questionnaire, dated 18 November 2013. a. The applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and polysubstance dependence. He had problems with polysubstance dependence, both cocaine and alcohol abuse that had been excessive. Part of the abuse was also related to stress from the Persian Gulf War as he started using after the war to deal with his stress. b. Three stressors are indicated that contributed to the applicant's diagnoses of PTSD. All three stressors met Criteria A-F from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV). * intense war experiences in the Persian Gulf War as verified by serving in an imminent danger pay area * fired at enemy tanks under direct fire * attached to 2nd Marines through the attack to take back Kuwait c. Symptoms that applied to the diagnosis of PTSD were: * depressed mood * anxiety * suspiciousness * chronic sleep impairment * disturbances of motivation and mood * difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships * difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances, including work or a work like setting * inability to establish and maintain effective relationships d. It was at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the applicant met the DSM-IV/V criteria for PTSD. He was exposed to intense war experiences in 1991 during the Persian Gulf War as verified by serving in an imminent danger pay area. He was fearful of this hostile military activity especially when his battery was called to do direct fire at enemy tanks in Kuwait and Iraq. He had intrusive thoughts, anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbance. He had been hospitalized several times at the Battle Creek VA Medical Center for treatment of PTSD. He had social dysfunction. His second wife noted he was different when he came back from the Persian Gulf in 1991. 11. On 26 October 2016, an advisory opinion was received from the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) psychiatrist. The ARBA psychiatrist concluded that because PTSD can be associated with use of illicit substances for self-medication of symptoms, there is likely a nexus between the applicant's PTSD and the misconduct which resulted in his discharge from the service (drug use). The psychiatrist concluded the applicant had a behavioral health condition (PTSD) which was mitigating for the offense leading to his separation from the military. a. There were no military medical records available for review. The lack of PTSD symptoms in the applicant's military records does not necessarily indicate he did not have PTSD. In the era of the applicant's military service, PTSD symptoms were frequently not recognized. Oftentimes, in these cases, the presence of PTSD has to be inferred from behavioral indicators. (1) The applicant's abuse of drugs is one such behavioral indicator as self-medication with illicit drugs is a common occurrence in PTSD. (2) The applicant's ex-wife's report that the applicant "changed" after returning home from the war is another behavioral indicator of PTSD. b. These indicators in combination with the VA diagnosis of PTSD provide sufficient substantiation that the applicant developed in service PTSD. 12. On 27 October 2016, the applicant was provided a copy of the above opinion for his comments or rebuttal. The applicant did not provide any comments or rebuttal to the advisory opinion. REFERENCES: 1. AR 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions), in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures governing promotions and reductions of Army enlisted personnel. Paragraph 6-15 stated that when the separation authority determined a Soldier was to be discharged from the service under other than honorable conditions, he or she was reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. Further board action was not required for this reduction. 2. AR 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 10 stated a member who was charged with an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request could be submitted at any time after charges had been preferred and must have included the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally given to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service. b. An honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitled the recipient to benefits provided by law. 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 have been clearly inappropriate. c. A general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was 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-V) 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. 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); or (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; or (6) sleep disturbance. f. Criterion F, duration: Persistence of symptoms (in Criteria B, C, D, and E) for more than one 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 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. 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 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. 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 under other than honorable conditions 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 had been promoted to sergeant, a position of authority and responsibility. In promoting the applicant to sergeant, the Army reposed special trust and confidence in the patriotism, valor, fidelity, and professional excellence of the applicant. As a sergeant, the applicant was in a position of trust and responsibility, and he was responsible for the welfare of those assigned under him. The applicant violated this special trust and confidence. 2. The applicant's separation processing package was not available for review. The specific charges that were preferred against the applicant are not known. However, based on the applicant's statement and VA notes, it appears the charges were related to drug abuse. 3. In order to be discharged under the provisions of chapter 10 of AR 635-200, charges would have been preferred against him for an offense for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge. The applicant would have: * been required to consult with defense counsel and to have voluntarily and in writing requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial * admitted he was guilty of the offenses he was charged with * acknowledged that he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions 4. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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. Further, it is presumed that the type of discharge and the reason for separation were appropriate. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. 5. When the separation authority determined a Soldier was to be discharged from the service under other than honorable conditions, he or she was reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. The applicant's reduction to private was based solely on his being approved for an under other than honorable discharge. 6. 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. 7. 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. PTSD is not a likely cause for either premeditated misconduct or misconduct that continues for an extended period of time. 8. The applicant's military service record does not show any indiscipline prior to his deployment to Saudi Arabia. He had been awarded three Army Achievement Medals and three awards of the Army Good Conduct Medal. 9. The ARBA psychiatrist concluded that because PTSD can be associated with use of illicit substances for self-medication of symptoms, there is likely a nexus between the applicant's PTSD and the misconduct which resulted in his discharge from the service. The psychiatrist concluded the applicant had a behavioral health condition (PTSD) which was mitigating for the offense leading to his separation from the military. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150015724 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150015724 11 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2