IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015748 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: 12 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015748 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: 12 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015748 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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable discharge based on his record of service and a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 2. The applicant states he enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Delayed Entry Program on 21 September 1977. He further enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 4 April 1978 and then reported to Fort Dix, NJ, for basic training and advanced individual training. a. He was assigned overseas to the 590th Transportation Company in Mannheim, Germany, where he served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 88M (Motor Transport Operator). b. He traveled many miles on the autobahn in West Germany performing missions into West Berlin. He was promoted to sergeant (E-5) in January 1981 and he trained numerous Soldiers on how to operate the 915 Tractor Trailer and the new High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle. c. He reenlisted in the RA on 6 January 1984. He was assigned overseas to Mannheim, Germany, again, this time to the 598th Transportation Company, 37th Transportation Group. He hauled military supplies and also performed top secret missions hauling Pershing missiles. He states that he and other truck drivers in his convoy were attacked at least a dozen times by German terrorist groups. On one particular occasion, in fear of his life, he defended himself and the other Soldiers against a terrorist. As the terrorist aimed (presumably, a weapon) at the applicant's face and neck, the applicant ran over him with his truck that had a low-boy trailer attached to it. The other drivers following him were also attacked. He adds that he still relives the incident and hears sounds of yelling and the voices of the other Soldiers, which causes him nightmares. d. In February 1986, he was assigned as a squad leader and instructor with 1st Squadron, 12th Cavalry, Fort Knox, KY. He was promoted to staff sergeant (E-6) in January 1987 and he became the assistant platoon sergeant with the corresponding duties and responsibilities. e. On one particular weekend, he discovered two Soldiers smoking in the men's bathroom of the barracks. They refused to obey his order to extinguish their cigarettes. One of the Soldiers punched him in the face, he defended himself, and the other Soldier joined the fight. The applicant states that he was blamed for the incident, sent to the post stockade, and reduced to private (E-1). He states this was an isolated incident. In retrospect, he realizes he should have called another noncommissioned officer (NCO) to witness and assist him. f. He concludes by stating that he was attacked while performing his duties as an NCO. He served honorably and received three awards of the Army Good Conduct Medal and two awards of the Overseas Service Ribbon. It was his intent to retire from the U.S. Army. 3. The applicant provides: * a self-authored statement, dated 18 September 2015 (summarized above) * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rating decision CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the USAR on 24 September 1977 for a period of 6 years. He further enlisted in the RA on 4 April 1978. Upon completion of training he was awarded MOS 64C (Motor Transport Operator), which was later converted to MOS 88M. 2. Through a series of reenlistments (on 27 January 1981 and 6 January 1984) he continued to serve on active duty. 3. His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record), in pertinent part, shows in: * item 5 (Oversea Service): Germany – * 21 July 1978 – 21 July 1983 * 12 February 1984 – 11 February 1986 * item 9 (Awards, Decorations and Campaigns) – * Overseas Service Ribbon with Numeral 2 * Army Service Ribbon * Army Good Conduct Medal (3rd Award) * Driver and Mechanic Badge * NCO Professional Development Ribbon * Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle (M-16) Bar * item 18 (Appointment and Reductions) – * specialist five (E-5), 7 July 1981 * sergeant (E-5), 1 October 1985 * staff sergeant (E-6), 7 January 1987 * sergeant (E-5), 21 December 1987 * specialist four (E-4), 9 February 1988 * private (E-1), 29 March 1988 * item 21 (Time Lost): Absent Without Leave: 29 January 1988 – 1 February 1988 (3 Days) 4. On 18 September 1987, Major General THT, Commander, U.S. Army Armor Center, Fort Knox, KY, issued a written reprimanded to the applicant for being in control of a motor vehicle when his blood alcohol content was .31 percent. 5. The applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP), as follows: * on 26 August 1987, for willfully damaging by breaking two windows of quarters (military property) on 17 May 1987 * on 21 December 1987, for – * failing to go to his appointed place of duty on 4 December 1987 * failing to obey an order from an NCO on 11 December 1987 * with intent to deceive, signing an official request to reinstate post driving privileges * on 9 February 1988, for – * absenting himself from his unit from 29 January to 2 February 1988 * breaking restriction on 29 January 1988 6. On 25 February 1988, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): * Article 128, for, on 18 February 1988, committing an assault upon Private First Class (PFC) JFF by striking him in the chest with a means (i.e., an adjustable wrench) likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm * Article 134, for, on 18 February 1988, wrongfully communicating to PFC JFF a threat to injure Private JHP by cutting him with a razor blade * Article 116, for, on 18 February 1988, causing a breach of the peace by wrongfully grabbing PFC JFF by the arm and using provoking language toward PFC JFF 7. The applicant consulted with legal counsel. He was informed of the charges against him for violating the UCMJ and that he was pending trial by court-martial. He was advised of the rights available to him and of the option to request discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. a. He voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. By submitting his request for discharge he acknowledged that he was guilty of the charge against him or of a lesser included offense(s) therein contained, which also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. The applicant's request for discharge states he was not subjected to coercion with respect to his request for discharge. b. He was advised that he might be: * deprived of many or all Army benefits * ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA * deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws c. He acknowledged he understood that, if his request for discharge was accepted, he might be discharged with an UOTHC discharge certificate. d. He was also advised that he could submit statements in his own behalf. He elected not to submit any statements in his own behalf. e. The applicant and his counsel placed their signatures on the document. 8. On 9 March 1988, the General Court-Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA) disapproved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service. 9. On 21 March 1988, the applicant requested the GCMCA reconsider his request for discharge for the good of the service. He acknowledged his abuse of alcohol as the source of his problems. He provided information regarding his recollection of matters relating to the events of 18 February 1988. He also offered his service during his decade-long career in mitigation of his actions. 10. The chain of command recommended approval of the applicant's request for reconsideration of his request for discharge for the good of the service with a UOTHC discharge. 11. On 29 March 1988, the GCMCA approved the applicant's request for reconsideration of his request for discharge for the good of the service, reduced him to the lowest enlisted grade, and directed that his service be characterized as UOTHC. 12. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he entered active duty this period on 4 April 1978 and he was discharged on 1 April 1988 under the provisions of (UP) Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with a UOTHC characterization of service. He had completed 9 years, 11 months, and 25 days of total active service during this period. 13. The applicant submitted an application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. On 4 December 1996, the ADRB determined that the reason for his discharge and the character of his service were both proper and equitable. Accordingly, the ADRB denied the relief requested by the applicant. 14. On 14 November 2000, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) denied the applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge. 15. In support of his application the applicant provides a copy of Atlanta VA Regional Office, Atlanta, GA, rating decision, dated 8 July 2015, that shows his claim for service connection for PTSD remains denied because the evidence submitted was not new and material. It also shows, in pertinent part, "You reported your stressors were due to incidents that occurred on May 12, 1984 and June 8, 1984; however, these incidents occurred during your dishonorable period of service. Your service from January 6, 1984 to April 1, 1988 was under dishonorable conditions and you are not entitled to receive VA benefits based upon this period of service. The available medical evidence is insufficient to confirm a link between current symptoms and an in-service stressor during your honorable period of service from April 4, 1978 to January 5, 1984." 16. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the medical staff of the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA), dated 31 October 2016. a. The ARBA staff psychiatrist stated the applicant is applying for upgrade of his discharge contending that the misconduct which led to his discharge from the Army was due to PTSD. Her review considered the applicant's application and his personal statement, VA progress notes and rating decision, and military records. No military medical records were available for review. b. She noted the applicant's contentions regarding at least a dozen terrorist attacks when he was driving in military convoys while serving in Germany and one particular incident that he claims the trauma led to his development of PTSD. c. Her review of the applicant's VA documentation indicates he participated in a 12-Step Recovery Maintenance Group and a Vocational Rehabilitation Group through the VA. As of 8 July 2015, the applicant's claim for service connection for PTSD "remains denied." d. The staff psychiatrist's review of the applicant's military record indicates no symptoms of PTSD or other behavioral health condition. She noted there is no evidence that the applicant failed to meet medical retention standards that were applicable to the applicant's era of service. e. The advisory official concluded, "Based on the documentation available for review at this time, there is insufficient evidence to support the applicant's claim that PTSD is the cause of the misconduct that led to his [UOTHC] discharge from the Army. The documentation submitted by the applicant does not support the applicant's contention that he has PTSD." 17. On 1 November 2016, the applicant was provided a copy of the ARBA advisory opinion to allow him the opportunity (30 days) to submit comments or a rebuttal. A response was not received from the applicant. REFERENCES: 1. 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." 2. 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. 3. 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, along with 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. 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 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. 5. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards 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. 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. 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. 8. AR 635-200, in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate. b. Chapter 3, paragraph 3-7a, provides that 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. c. Chapter 3, paragraph 3-7b, provides that 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. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant's contention that his discharge should be upgraded based on PTSD was carefully considered. 2. There is no evidence of record to show the applicant had a medical condition that was found to be medically unfitting during the period of service under review. a. The VA has denied the applicant's claim for service connection for PTSD. b. The ARBA staff psychiatrist found no evidence that the applicant failed to meet medical retention standards that were applicable to the applicant's era of service. She concluded that the documentation submitted by the applicant does not support his contention that he has PTSD. 3. The applicant's request for discharge UP AR 635-200, chapter 10, to avoid trial by court-martial was both voluntary and administratively correct. All requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. In addition, the reason for and type of discharge directed were appropriate and equitable. 4. The evidence of record shows the applicant was reprimanded for being in control of a motor vehicle when his blood alcohol content was .31 percent. He also received NJP on three separate occasions for various offenses of the UCMJ. Then, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for violation of the UCMJ involving offenses against subordinate Soldiers. 5. The evidence of record shows the applicant's character of service was carefully considered by the chain of command and the separation authority when the applicant submitted his request for reconsideration of his request for discharge for the good of the service. It is clear his service during the period of service under review did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel to merit either an honorable discharge or a general, under honorable conditions discharge. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150015748 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150015748 10 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2