SAMR-RB 23 August 2017 MEMORANDUM FOR Case Management Division, US Army Review Boards Agency, 251 18th Street South, Suite 385, Arlington, VA 22202-3531 SUBJECT: Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings for, AR20160001130 1. Reference the attached Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings, dated 10 August 2017, in which the Board members unanimously recommended denial of the applicant's request. 2. I have reviewed the findings, conclusions, and Board member recommendations. I find there is sufficient evidence to grant relief. Therefore, under the authority of Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, I direct that all Department of the Army Records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing the applicant a new DD Form 214 to show: • Character of Service: "General, Under Honorable Conditions" • Grade, Rate or Rank: "PFC" • Date of Rank: "1 July 1981" • Pay Grade: "E-3" 3. Request necessary administrative action be taken to effect the correction of records as indicated no later than 22 December 2017. Further, request that the individual concerned and counsel, if any, as well as any Members of Congress who have shown interest be advised of the correction and that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records be furnished a copy of the correspondence. BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: Encl Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) BOARD DATE: 10 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001130 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____x____ ___x_____ ___x_____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 10 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001130 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. BOARD DATE: 10 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001130 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request for an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions to honorable. (His earlier request was for an upgrade of his discharge to under honorable conditions (general).) 2. The applicant states: a. He became withdrawn and depressed and he was accused of abusing sick call and not wanting to work. He was constantly harassed by his chain of command and fellow Soldiers by being the butt of their jokes and cruel punishment. During a temporary duty assignment with his unit at Fort Dix, NJ, he was always on guard duty or placed on assignments away from his platoon; b. Upon his unit’s return to Fort Hood, TX, he was left alone at a bivouac site where he lived until he was found by military police. He was taken in and it was discovered he was absent without leave (AWOL). He was taken to the mental ward at Fort Dix. He was suffering from severe shortness of breath and tightness of the chest. He has mental health issues and he was in a deep state of depression; he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). c. He was advised to accept a discharge under other than honorable conditions and receive the mental health assistance he needed, rather than possibly wait in the stockade for a court-martial date. He was told the discharge under other than honorable conditions would not change any benefits he would receive. d. It is plain to see he had mental issues and should have received a medical discharge. He deserves better than a discharge under other than honorable conditions because his platoon left him in another State with serious mental issues suffering from PTSD. 3. The applicant provides: * self-authored statement * Atlanta Veterans Affairs Medical Center Progress Notes and Medical Records * letter of support CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Based on the applicant's claim that he suffers from PTSD, his application is being considered de novo under the 2014 Secretary of Defense's guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military Records/Naval Records (BCM/NRs). 2. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 October 1979. He held military occupational specialty 51B (Carpentry/Masonry Specialist). 3. His DA Form 20 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows he was advanced to private first class (PFC)/E-3 on 1 July 1981; this was the highest rank he held. It also shows two reductions. His final reduction was to private (PVT)/E-1 on 20 February 1985. 4. On 30 November 1981, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for operating a vehicle while intoxicated on 9 November 1981. 5. A DA Form 2-2 (Insert Sheet to DA Form 2-1/Record of Court Martial Conviction) shows he was convicted by a summary court-martial (SCM) for disobeying a lawful order by operating a privately owned vehicle on or about 8 April 1982 after his driving privileges were revoked. 6. A Fort Dix Personnel Control Facility Form 617 (AWOL-Deserter Verification Sheet) dated 4 February 1985 shows the applicant: * departed AWOL on 2 June 1982 * was dropped from the rolls on 2 July 1982 * returned to military control on 3 February 1985 (following apprehension) 7. On 4 February 1985, he completed a statement wherein he indicated he departed AWOL from Fort Hood because his wife was expecting and he needed to be at home. He told his first sergeant he wanted to get out of the Army, but he was told he would not get out of the Army until he went to jail so he just left. 8. On 6 February 1985, a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) was prepared preferring court-martial charges against the applicant for being AWOL from on or about 2 June 1982 through 3 February 1985. 9. On 6 February 1985, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him. Following consultation with legal counsel, he requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. In his request for discharge, he indicated: * he was making this request of his own free will and had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person * he did not desire any further rehabilitation under any circumstances because he had no desire to perform further service * he understood if his discharge request were approved he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits and he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration * he understood he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws * he elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf 10. The applicant's immediate and intermediate commanders recommended approval of his voluntary request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10, with the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions. 11. On 20 February 1985, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service lieu of court-martial; reduction to the lowest enlisted grade; and the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 13 March 1985. 12. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under other than honorable conditions in accordance with chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service-in lieu of trial by court-martial. It also shows he completed 2 years, 9 months, and 10 days of active service and he had 975 days of lost time. It shows in: * item 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank) and 4b (Pay Grade), PVT and E-1 * item 24 (Character of Service), under other than honorable conditions * item 25 (Separation Authority), chapter 10, AR 635-200 * Item 26 (Separation Code) – KFS * Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court-martial 13. On 29 July 1986, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed his discharge and found it proper and equitable. The ADRB denied his petition for an upgrade of his discharge. 14. On 1 August 2013, the ABCMR denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. 15. The applicant provides numerous medical documents addressed below. He also provides a letter in support of his claim for an upgrade of his discharge, wherein the author states the applicant: * has been an active member volunteering his time and services with a homeless veterans program for the last 6 years * is an outstanding person with a big heart * is a valuable part of the community at the Atlanta VA 16. On 7 December 2016, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor/Psychologist. This official opined: a. The applicant was court-martialed for operating a vehicle on post with revoked driving privileges. He was also AWOL from 2 July 1982 to 3 February 1985. He explained his prolonged period of AWOL was due to his wife’s pregnancy, he was needed at home. While AWOL he was arrested in Austin, TX, by local police for burglary on 5 January 1984. The U.S. Department of Justice show arrests under other names for shop lifting under $100, littering, and possessing Ampicillin in 1978, which was prior to entering the Army. In August 2013, the ABCMR rejected his request for an upgrade of his discharge, because he provided no evidence from mental health professionals showing he had a mitigating mental health diagnosis at the time he went AWOL or when he was discharged. His current application lists PTSD as a mitigating condition as part of his justification for an upgrade of his discharge, though mitigation is not at issue in the upgrade of a general discharge for unsatisfactory performance. b. The applicant has records from the VA that show an extensive mental-health history, which includes other occupational circumstances or maladjustment that involves: * cannabis dependence and cocaine abuse, both in remission * depression and homelessness for 14 years * major depressive disorder, recurrent, without psychotic features and alcohol dependence as an active diagnosis in 2012 * major depressive disorder, recurrent, without psychotic features and alcohol dependence as active diagnosis * other occupational circumstances or maladjustment in 2014 * polysubstance abuse * a note listing schizoaffective disorder in 2016 * being prone to psychotic decompensation and he has received antipsychotic medication c. His 2013 non-VA medical records and medical history include: * a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, most recent episode is mixed, severe with psychotic features * a 27 June 2013 diagnosis of PTSD, without a basis or onset * a record that is not consistent with PTSD being service connected * cognitive disorder, not otherwise specified d. It is difficult to believe the applicant had no prodromal symptoms during his military service. One would have expected prodromal systems in a patient who has come to have his level of impairment to occur during his age range at the time of his Army service and discharge. Disconnections from social relations in a patient who has come to have his level of impairment occurs during his age range at the time of his Army service and discharge. Disconnection from social relations other than one’s own family is common symptoms of disorders in the psychotic spectrum. In that light, the psychologist believes it is defensible to mitigate his prolonged AWOL. Subsequently, history shows an inability to mingle with others is a prominent feature of his illness. Also, for bipolar disorder, drug abuse is highly common, as this disorder includes impulsivity and pleasure seeking behavior among its symptoms. Even though it is not true the applicant met diagnostic criteria for a psychotic disorder at the time of his service, his age, behavior, including social ineptitude, support, albeit far from conclusively, the hypothesis that the onset of his disorder began during, or even before, his military service. This psychologist favors leniency toward all of his misconduct and unsatisfactory performance during his military service. This psychologist adds, the applicant is receiving considerable assistance from the VA already; however, the psychologist does not believe a general discharge takes seriously enough the severity of the illness he was likely experiencing at the time of his misconduct. e. The applicant’s available records do not at the time of the discharge reasonably support him having had a boardable medical condition. He met medical retention standards. The current application with the supporting material makes a much stronger case for an upgrade than his previous application, though it would have been very helpful to have records that date back to the early 1990’s or earlier to enhance the plausibility of the conclusions. f. A review of available documentation found evidence of a mental health condition or conditions that warrant a change of the character service in this case. A plausible nexus between the applicant’s misconduct and a mental condition was discovered. 17. The applicant was provided a copy of this advisory opinion to give him an opportunity to submit comments and/or a rebuttal. He did not respond. REFERENCES: 1. AR 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses under the UCMJ 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 with no coercion by Army personnel. A medical examination was not required but could be requested by the Soldier under the provisions of AR 40-501. A Soldier who requests a medical examination must also have a mental status evaluation before discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. b. Paragraph 1-14 states that when a member was to be discharged under other than honorable conditions, the convening authority would direct an immediate reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. c. 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. d. 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. 2. PTSD can occur after someone goes through a traumatic event like combat, assault, or disaster. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) publishes the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM) 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. The 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. 5. 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, 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. 6. 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. 7. 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 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? 8. 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's record shows he was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. Discharges under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200, are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. He voluntarily, willingly, and in writing requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. 2. The applicant's record shows the following extensive history of misconduct: * operating a vehicle while intoxicated * operating a vehicle after driving privileges were revoked * being AWOL for 975 days from 2 June 1982 through 3 February 1985 3. The available medical evidence shows a medical doctor diagnosed the applicant with PTSD. After evaluating all available documentation, the ARBA Clinical Psychologist opined the applicant had an undiagnosed mental condition or conditions warranting a change in his character of service. This psychologist found a plausible nexus between the applicant's mental health and the misconduct that led to his discharge. 4. 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. 5. 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160001130 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160001130 10 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2