IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 21 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150016746 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: 21 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150016746 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is 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 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), for the period ending 26 March 1973, to show the characterization of his service as "Under Honorable Conditions (General)" and his rank/grade as private first class (PFC)/E-3 with a date of rank of 25 December 1970. _____________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: 21 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150016746 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 his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. 2. The applicant states he suffers today from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which he was not aware of during the time of his service in the Republic of Vietnam. Additionally, he was sickened by "Agent Orange." He realizes he was absent without leave (AWOL) but he was in combat and should be given medical benefits regardless of the days he was AWOL. 3. The applicant provides: * a copy of page one of the Secretary of Defense memorandum, dated 3 September 2014 * a memorandum from Dr. S.L.D, his civilian doctor at Mercy Adel Medical Center, dated 30 August 2013 * a four-page Psychiatric Evaluation from Dr. P.R.B., his civilian doctor at West Valley Psychiatric Associates, with examination dates of 9 January 2017 and 23 January 2017 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 30 June 1970. After completing his initial entry training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman). 3. Special Orders Number 36, issued by Headquarters, 2nd Brigade (Provisional) (Separate), 25th Infantry Division on 13 December 1970, shows the applicant arrived in the Republic of Vietnam on 10 December 1970 and was further assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion (Mechanized), 5th Infantry Regiment on 15 December 1970. 4. The applicant's available record does not contain a complete separation packet; however it does contain the following documents: a. A memorandum from Commander, Company C, 1st Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 11th Infantry Brigade, 23rd Infantry Division to The Adjutant General, Headquarters, Department of the Army, dated 2 July 1971, subject: Commanding Officer's Inquiry. This document shows the following: (1) In compliance with U.S. Army Vietnam (USARV) Regulation 630-10 (Personnel Absences – AWOL, Desertion, and Administration of Personnel Involved in Civilian Court Proceedings), the findings of the investigation and inquiry pertaining to the status (Dropped from Rolls (DFR) as a Deserter) (2 July 1971) of (Private First Class (PFC) Applicant) are submitted. (2) (Applicant) departed the company on 12 May 1971 on a fourteen-day CONUS leave. He never returned and was declared AWOL as of 1 June 1971. He was DFR as a deserter effective 2 July 1971. b. A DA Form 188 (Extract Copy of Morning Report), dated 3 July 1971, shows the applicant was listed as AWOL from his unit, on or about 1 June 1971, and was dropped from the Army rolls on 2 July 1971. Additionally, a DA Form 3545 (Deserter Wanted by the Armed Forces) was prepared. c. A DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 2 July 1971, shows court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from on or about 1 June 1971 to an undetermined date. d. Special Orders Number 196, issued by Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division and Fort Riley, KS on 15 July 1971, shows the applicant was returned to military control on or about 14 July 1971 and was assigned to the Personnel Control Facility (PCF), Fort Riley, KS, effective 15 July 1971. e. A DA Form 188, dated 12 August 1971, shows the applicant was listed as AWOL on or about 21 July 1971 and DFR on 22 July 1971 from the PCF, Fort Riley, KS. Additionally, a DA Form 3545 was prepared. On 13 February 1973, Part II of DA Form 3545 shows he was returned to military authorities at Fort Riley, KS on 11 February 1973. f. Special Orders Number 44, issued by Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division and Fort Riley, KS on 13 February 1973, assigned him to the PCF, Fort Riley, KS, effective 12 February 1973. g. On 12 February 1973, the applicant was afforded the opportunity to participate in the Fort Riley Drug Rehabilitation Program with amnesty and rehabilitation services, under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-32, as a drug experimenter, drug user, or drug addict. However, he waived such amnesty and rehabilitation and elected not to participate in the program with his signature. h. On 12 February 1973, he was instructed of his Miranda rights and rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and, with his signature, he acknowledged that he understood those rights. Additionally, on the same day, he waived his rights to counsel by his signature. This is presumed to result from the court-martial charges that were preferred against him on 2 July 1971. i. On 28 February 1973, the Commander, PCF recommended the applicant's discharge from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Misconduct) (Fraudulent Entry, Conviction by Civil Court, and Absence Without Leave or Desertion), paragraph 45b - unauthorized absence in excess of one year. The specific reason cited was his AWOL status from on or about 1 June 1971 until on or about 4 July 1971 and from on or about 21 July 1971 to on or about 11 February 1973. He further recommended the applicant receive an undesirable discharge. j. On 28 February 1973, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation notice and consulted with legal counsel. He was advised of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him as a result of an issuance of a discharge under conditions other than honorable, that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws, and the he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life. He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, personal appearance before that board, and representation by a consulting counsel. He elected to submit a statement in his own behalf. k. His statement to the separation authority stated, in effect, that while serving in the Republic of Vietnam, during which time he received the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB), he became seriously addicted to heroin. He truly believed the only way to overcome the problem was to go home. When he took his 14 days of leave, and got away from his problem, with the help of his mother, he overcame the addiction and has not used drugs since. l. On 28 February 1973, he requested to be placed on excess leave that was approved on 1 March 1973. m. On 14 March 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. n. Special Orders Number 74, issued by Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division (Mechanized) and Fort Riley, KS on 19 March 1973, by Verbal Order of Commander (VOCDR), reduced the applicant from the rank/grade of PFC/E-3 to the rank/grade of private (PV1)/E-1, effective 13 March 1973, under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System). 5. The applicant was discharged on 26 March 1973, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, paragraph 45b, by reason of prolonged unauthorized absence for more than 1-year desertion. His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. His DD Form 214 further shows: * he was credited for completing 11 months and 27 days of total active service * he was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal and the CIB * he had 388 days of lost time before his expiration term of service (ETS) and 242 days of lost time subsequent to his normal ETS 6. There is no evidence in the applicant's available record that shows he was diagnosed with, or treated for, PTSD or another behavioral health condition during his period of military service. 7. The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge. On 10 February 1976, The Adjutant General informed the applicant that after careful consideration of his military records and all other available evidence, the ADRB determined he was properly and equitably discharged. Accordingly, his request for a change in the type and nature of his discharge was denied. 8. As a result of the Department of Defense (DOD) Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP), the applicant's military records and all other available evidence were carefully reviewed by the ADRB and it was again determined that he was properly and equitably discharged on 28 July 1977. 9. The applicant provides: a. A copy of page one of the Secretary of Defense memorandum, subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards of Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming PTSD, dated 3 September 2014. b. A letter from Dr. S.L.D., his civilian doctor at Mercy Adel Medical Center, Adel, IA, dated 30 August 2013, which states the applicant has been a patient of hers for 10 years and suffers from numerous medical conditions. Those medical conditions include: * coronary artery disease, for which he continues to see a cardiologist * diabetes mellitus, which has required treatment since 2005 * anxiety/depression, which has required treatment since 2005 and is an issue he continues to struggle with c. A four-page Psychiatric Evaluation from Dr. P.R.B., his civilian doctor at West Valley Psychiatric Associates, with examination dates of 9 January and 13 January 2017, which states, in effect, that he diagnosed the applicant with PTSD and Persistent Depressive Disorder as supported by his experiences and memories of his traumatic events, his avoidance issues, dreams, hypervigilance, and anger behavior all of which began during his period of active duty service in the Army as a result of his combat experiences in the Republic of Vietnam. 10. In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Army Review Board Agency's (ARBA) Clinical Psychologist. After review by the applicant, the advisory opinion was amended by a medical document (Psychiatric Evaluation) provided by the applicant on or about 27 January 2017. The medical advisory opinion states: a. The applicant served in the Republic of Vietnam from November 1970 to May 1971. He returned to family on leave in May 1971 in the hope of kicking a heroin addiction he acquired in the Republic of Vietnam. He went AWOL from 1 June 1971 to 14 July 1971. He was supposed to return to the Republic of Vietnam after his leave. Before his return to the Republic of Vietnam he again went AWOL from 21 July 1971 to 11 February 1973 when he turned himself in to authorities at Fort Riley, Kansas. He spent 33 days in the stockade before being discharged under conditions other than honorable. b. In his available record, he admitted that he did not wish to return to the Republic of Vietnam because heroin was ubiquitous and he feared he would again become addicted to it. Desiring not to be returned to the Republic of Vietnam led to his prolonged AWOL. During the approximately half-year he was in the Republic of Vietnam he was with the Americal Division and the 25th Infantry Division, and earned a CIB for what he described as exposure to sniper fire. The Army did offer the applicant drug treatment at Fort Riley after it learnt of his heroin addiction; however, he declined it, saying he was then off heroin by the time he was offered treatment, having stopped using during his AWOL period. c. In support of his application, he supplied a letter from his doctor, Dr. S.L.D., dated 17 August 2013. She stated she has treated the applicant for approximately 10 years. His illnesses include coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus (insulin dependent), diabetic neuropathy, and "anxiety/depression." She indicated that adequate management of his anxiety and depression, which she has treated since 2005, has been difficult to attain. She indicated his anxiety and depression have proved treatment resistant, required numerous medication changes and adjustments, and also continues to be an area of clinical concern. d. On 27 January 2017, the applicant provided an additional psychiatric evaluation by Dr. P.R.B. He diagnosed PTSD, linked it to events that occurred in the Republic of Vietnam to the applicant, and noted the onset of symptoms of PTSD at the time of the applicant's return to the United States when he went AWOL. He also provide a reconstruction, based on the applicant's report, of what happened at that time, which was consistent with the applicant having PTSD at that time. His avoidance of the return to the Republic of Vietnam and a military environment are also consistent with a PTSD diagnosis, as are the fear and anxiety that he attested had led him to return form his AWOL are accounted for in Dr. P.R.B.'s evaluation. e. In addition, there was no evidence he had a psychiatric condition that existed prior to service. Although fear and his drug addiction are perhaps plausible explanations of the applicant's behavior in 1971 to 1972, current guidance justifies giving him the benefit of the doubt and it should be stipulated that he had PTSD at that time. f. His available records do not support that he had a boardable condition at the time of his discharge. He met behavioral health retention standards at the time of his discharge. His condition does mitigate his AWOLs (emphasis added). There was a medical examination as required in his service record and no other information was deemed relevant to the behavioral health of the applicant's case. There are no reasons not to mitigate the applicant's misconduct. g. In conclusion are the following: (1) The applicant did meet medical retention standards in accordance with chapter 3 of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), and following the provisions set forth in Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) that were applicable to the applicant's era of service. (2) The applicant's medical conditions, assuming he did have PTSD, were not duly considered during medical separation processing, but could not have been given the mental-health diagnoses at that time. (3) A review of available documentation did find evidence of a medical disability or conditions which would support a change to the character or reason for the discharge in this case. A causal nexus between the applicant's behavioral-health diagnoses and his misconduct was discovered (emphasis added). REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7b states 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. b. Chapter 7-30 (e), in effect at the time, states the reduction authority and reasons when an individual is approved to be discharged from the service with an undesirable discharge, the individual will be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. The Commander exercising general court-martial jurisdiction will, upon approval of recommendation for discharge, or upon receipt of approval from higher authority, direct reduction of such individual to private, E-1, by the reducing authority. 2. Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for misconduct (fraudulent entry, conviction by civil court, and absence without leave or desertion). This regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the discharge of enlisted personnel for desertion or absence without leave who are amenable to trial and whose return to military control is not prohibited. It has been determined by an administrative review of all facts that there is substantial evidence to support a determination of desertion or absence without leave. The unauthorized absence has continued for more than 1 year. An individual discharge by reason of desertion or absence without leave under this section normally will be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 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-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 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. (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. (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. (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). (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 (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 Department of Defense (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 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. 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 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. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant's request for an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge, to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge, was carefully considered. 2. The evidence shows the applicant served in the Republic of Vietnam from on or about 10 December 1970 to on or about 12 May 1971, then went on an authorized 14 day mid-tour leave. However, he never returned to the Republic of Vietnam and was declared AWOL as of 1 June 1971. He was DFR as a deserter and court-martial charges were preferred against him effective 2 July 1971. 3. He went AWOL on three separate occasions. Subsequently, his chain of command initiated separation proceedings on him. He was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, paragraph 45b, by reason of prolonged unauthorized absence for more than 1-year (desertion). His discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations in effect at the time. The characterization of his discharge was commensurate with the reason for discharge and his overall record of military service in accordance with the governing regulations in effect at the time. 4. The applicant contends his misconduct was a result of his addiction to heroin and he needed to be away from that environment in order to get better. He further states that as a combat veteran he should be given an upgrade to his discharge in order to receive medical benefits regardless of the days he was AWOL. 5. After his discharge, he was diagnosed by a two civilian medical and mental health professionals with service-connected PTSD, anxiety, and persistent depressive disorder based on numerous stressors he experienced in the Republic of Vietnam, albeit some 45 years later. 6. The Department of Defense now has a 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. Consequently, Soldiers who suffered from PTSD, who were separated solely for misconduct subsequent to a traumatic event, warrant careful consideration for the possible re-characterization of their overall service. 7. Based on his experiences, he was diagnosed with PTSD by a mental health professional. The ARBA Clinical Psychologist opined that, based on the information available, it is reasonable to assume it is likely that his PTSD existed at the time of his service and was a causative factor in the misconduct that led to his 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) AR20150016746 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150016746 14 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2