SAMR-RB 1O January 2018 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 AR20160004945 1. Reference the attached Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings, dated 12 December 2017, in which the Board members unanimously recommended partial relief 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 DD Form 214 showing his characterization of service as "honorable." I direct no further correction be made to the record of the individual concerned. 3. Request necessary administrative action be taken to effect the correction of records as indicated no later than 1O May 2018. 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) CF: ( ) OMPF BOARD DATE: 12 December 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160004945 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ___x_____ __x______ __x____ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 12 December 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160004945 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial amendment of the ABCMR's decision in Docket Number AR20110015268 dated 7 February 2012. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing the applicant's DD Form 214 for the period ending 31 August 2007 to show his character of service as general under honorable conditions. 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to upgrading the character of his service to fully honorable. _________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: 12 December 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160004945 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 prior request for an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge (BCD) to honorable. 2. The applicant states: a. He requests a discharge upgrade because he was diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or related conditions that he believes mitigated the misconduct that led to his discharge. He is currently seeking treatment from a specialist. b. He served in the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) from 2003 through 2006 when he was given a BCD. He did not receive adequate counsel at his court-martial from his court-appointed attorney, Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) M____, who lied to him and gave him incorrect information. LTC M____ stated that this was his last trial and he was ready to get it over with. It seemed as if LTC M____ was more focused on his own separation processing. c. LTC M____ stated to him in a discussion about the charges that it didn't matter to him or anyone else what he was or wasn't guilty of. Many charges would "stick" and that overcharging was a common practice to make the charges "stick." LTC M____ recommended that he ask for a BCD, but he told LTC M____ that he didn't want to ask for a BCD and he wanted to fight the charges. d. At the time, he was being held in the Christian County Jail and was receiving no pay. He was married and his wife was not working. They were on the verge of losing their house, vehicles, and good credit standing. LTC M____ agreed he would probably lose his home, vehicles, and good credit standing if he didn't resolve the situation as soon as possible by taking a plea bargain and just moving on. Members of his unit laughed and joked about his financial situation as they would transport him to LTC M____'s office, making statements along the lines of "You'll get out with nothing but a shitty discharge and no benefits; I'll make sure of it." After his discharge, he did end up losing his house, having his car repossessed, and filing for bankruptcy because of the situation. e. When he asked LTC M____ about his discharge and whether it could or would be upgraded, he stated there would be a review 6 months after his discharge and it would most likely be overturned. He also stated that if it was not overturned at that point, he would be able to appeal it 1 year after the discharge and there wouldn't be any reason he shouldn't receive an upgrade. His paralegal assistant also stated the same. He was led to believe that an upgrade to a general discharge would be automatic. f. He was in an extremely tough predicament and wasn't given proper legal representation. Based on the misinformation he received from his legal counsel, he accepted the plea bargain. He would not have accepted the plea bargain had he received proper advice, but he was threatened by his chain of command, who intentionally made it extremely difficult for him to receive proper counsel. g. He fought hard during his combat deployments and was a very "squared away" Soldier, both through deployments and in garrison. He passed all Army Physical Fitness Tests he was given and all schools and training he attended. He went above and beyond to learn and excel at his military occupational specialty 11C (Indirect Fire Infantryman). He was promoted to the rank of specialist with a waiver after 18 months of service and he was awarded an Army Good Conduct Medal right before he was charged. h. He tried several times over a 10-year span to upgrade his discharge and he truly believes that if he had been given adequate counsel and had his PTSD diagnoses been known, which mitigated his misconduct, he would not have been discharged in the manner as he was. 3. The applicant provides: * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States), dated 20 February 2016 * self-authored statement * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision, dated 22 February 2017 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20110015268 on 7 February 2012. 2. The applicant contends he was suffering from PTSD, which is a new argument, and provides a VA Rating Decision as new evidence, both of which were not previously considered by the Board and warrant consideration at this time. 3. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 March 2003 and held military occupational specialty 11C. 4. A DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 15 June 2006, shows his duty status was changed from present for duty to confined by military authorities effective 27 April 2006. It states he was confined in Christian County Jail in Hopkinsville, KY, on 27 April 2006 for pre-trial confinement. 5. Headquarters, Fort Campbell Installation, Special Court-Martial Order Number 17, dated 21 September 2006, shows he appeared before a special court-martial which convened Fort Campbell, KY, and was found guilty of feigning suicidal and homicidal ideations at or near Fort Campbell, KY, from on or about 23 February 2006 to on or about 26 April 2006. The remaining charges and their specifications were dismissed by the military judge prior to the findings. 6. On 9 June 2006, he was sentenced to reduction in rank/grade to private/E-1, confinement for 60 days, and a bad conduct discharge. The convening authority approved only so much of the sentence as provided for confinement for 43 days and a bad conduct discharge. 7. Headquarters, U.S. Army Armor Center and Fort Knox, Special Court-Martial Order Number 78, dated 27 April 2007, shows the sentence to a bad conduct discharge and confinement for 43 days, adjudged on 9 June 2006, had been finally affirmed. The sentence to confinement had been served and the applicant was credited with 43 days of confinement against the sentence to confinement. The sentence having been complied with, the bad conduct discharge was ordered to be executed. 8. There is no evidence of record indicating he was ill-advised to accept a plea bargain or otherwise given inadequate counsel by his court-appointed attorney, LTC M____, when he appeared before the special court-martial. 9. On 31 August 2007, he was given a bad conduct discharge pursuant to the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 3, as a result of court martial. He completed 4 years, 3 months, and 27 days of net active service this period. 10. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he served in an imminent danger pay area; however, the country and exact dates of this service is unknown. It shows he was awarded or authorized the: * Army Commendation Medal * Meritorious Unit Commendation * Army Good Conduct Medal * National Defense Service Medal * Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal * Global War on Terrorism Service Medal * Army Service Ribbon * Combat Infantryman Badge * Air Assault Badge 11. He petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge. On 1 October 2010, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request, determining that his discharge was both proper and equitable. 12. He subsequently applied to the ABCMR for an upgrade of his discharge. On 7 February 2012, the Board denied his request, determining clemency was not warranted. 13. A VA Rating Decision, dated 22 February 2017, shows he was granted a service-connected disability rating of 70 percent for PTSD effective 10 March 2016. 14. The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Psychiatrist provided an advisory opinion on 10 August 2017, which states: a. A review of his military medical record in the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application shows he was seen by the Behavioral Health Department on 3 March 2006 following an admission to the inpatient psychiatric facility Cumberland Hall for depression and suicidal ideation. He reported to the Behavioral Health Department that he had started feeling depressed while deployed to Iraq, but had received no treatment for it. He acknowledged he was also having marital difficulties. He was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with depressed mood and marital problems. b. On 15 March 2006, he reported he had been diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder as a child, for which he received stimulant medication. While hospitalized at Cumberland Hall, he was prescribed Remeron (an antidepressant) and Rozerem (a sleeping medication). He reported that his unit was deploying to Iraq on 24 March 2006. Because these medications were not available in Iraq, his military psychiatrist changed his medications to Adderal (a stimulant), Zoloft (an antidepressant), and Ambien (a sleeping pill). He was diagnosed with adjustment disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. c. On 24 March 2006, he reported feeling better. When he was told he could continue his psychiatric treatment in Iraq, he became angry and stated he did not want to return to Iraq. He left the appointment abruptly after his interaction. d. On 29 March 2006, he was seen by the Psychiatry Department. During this appointment, he reported depressed mood, decreased appetite, insomnia, anger, irritability, impaired concentration, suicidal ideation, and homicidal ideation. He adamantly disagreed with the medical decision that he could deploy to Iraq. He requested a delay of his deployment but was told by the Psychiatry Department that his behavioral health symptoms were not severe enough to warrant a 30-day delay in deployment. Upon hearing this, he became angry and stated he might have to readmit himself to the hospital because of his psychiatric condition. e. On 7 April 2006, he reported to the Behavioral Health Department that he had received a 30-day delay in deployment from his rear division commander. He also reported receiving a bad counseling statement from his unit. f. On 24 April 2006, he reported he had made a complaint to the Office of the Inspector General about the medical decision that he was ready to deploy again. He continued to say he did not want to deploy. He also reported that his noncommissioned officers were trying to uncover evidence that could be used against him for a pattern of misconduct discharge. g. On 26 April 2006, he reported to Social Work Services that he was "not emotionally or psychologically ready to return to Iraq." He stated he was still having suicidal and homicidal ideations toward his command and the mental health professionals who wanted him to deploy. h. On 26 April 2006, the Psychiatry Department also evaluated him and reported he was very upset with the Psychiatry Department because he had been cleared to return to duty. At this time, he reported he had a loaded pistol at home. He refused to be hospitalized. He also reported he had handcuffed and dragged his wife to their car earlier in the week. He then left the office. The military police were contacted and the applicant was arrested on 27 April 2006 and his weapon was secured. i. On 9 June 2006, the psychiatrist documented that he had testified in the applicant's court-martial hearing and diagnosed him with malingering. j. A review of the applicant's electronic VA medical records in the Joint Legacy Viewer shows he twice deployed to Iraq. He deployed to Iraq for 10 months in 2003 to 2004. During this deployment, he was exposed to small arms fire on at least 20 occasions and he reported being exposed to mortar attacks on at least 30 occasions. During this deployment, he earned the Combat Infantryman Badge. k. His second deployment to Iraq was for 6 months in 2005 to 2006. During this deployment, he was exposed to small arms fire two to three times per week and rocket and mortar attacks four to five times per week, as well as three blasts from improvised explosive devices (IED). One of the IED blasts resulted in him feeling dazed and rattled afterward. He denied loss of consciousness, but reported he started bleeding from his right ear after experiencing the blast. He also reported he was assigned to "burn pit" detail during his deployment to Iraq. l. His VA medical records indicate he received a 70-percent service-connected disability rating for PTSD and that he suffers from severe hearing loss, especially in his right ear. The PTSD symptoms suffered by the applicant include recurrent and intrusive memories, disturbed sleep, physiological distress at reminders of his trauma, avoidance behaviors, negative beliefs about the world, distorted cognitions, anger, irritability, hypervigilance, impaired concentration, and increased startle reaction. m. On the surface, this case appears to be very clear cut. However, upon further review of his medical records, several issues become apparent. The records clearly document that the applicant did not want to return to Iraq. However, there is no documentation in the medical records of any behavioral health provider ever asking him why he did not want to return to Iraq. In his 26 April 2006 Social Work Services appointment, he states he "was not emotionally or psychologically ready to return to Iraq." Ordinarily, such a statement would open up a discourse between the behavioral health provider and the patient as to why he was not ready to return to Iraq and screening questions directed at uncovering PTSD symptoms would be asked. No such discourse or inquiry is documented in his records. n. There is also no documentation of the applicant ever being screened for PTSD. There are no "4QPTSD [four-question primary care PTSD screen]" or "PCL-M [PTSD Checklist – Military Version]" scores documented in his records. These observations are of significance because many of the applicant's acting out behaviors can be better understood when viewed through the lens of PTSD. His adamant refusal to return to Iraq, his subsequent use of threats of harm toward his command and mental health providers, and his plea of guilty to the charges of feigning suicidal and homicidal ideation in order to avoid deployment can all be seen as variants of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), 5th Edition, avoidance criteria used in diagnosing PTSD, specifically criterion C.1: "Avoidance of or efforts to avoid external reminders (people, places, conversations, activities, objects, situations) that arouse distressing memories, thoughts, or feelings about or closely associated with the traumatic event(s)." o. Based on the information available for review, it is the ARBA Psychiatrist's opinion that the applicant suffered from PTSD while serving on active duty. As this condition is associated with avoidant behaviors, there is a nexus between his PTSD and the offenses of feigning suicidal and homicidal ideation in order to avoid deployment. The applicant's diagnosis of PTSD is considered mitigating for the offenses leading to his BCD from the Army. p. The applicant's military medical records do support a PTSD diagnosis at the time of his discharge. His medical records indicate he met medical retention standards and separation through military medical channels was not indicated. His diagnosis of PTSD is a mitigating factor in his misconduct. 15. The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion on 15 August 2017 and given an opportunity to submit comments or a rebuttal. He did not respond. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552, provides that with respect to records of courts-martial and related administrative records pertaining to court-martial cases tried or reviewed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, action to correct any military record of the Secretary's Department may extend only to correction of a record to reflect actions taken by reviewing authorities under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or action on the sentence of a court-martial for purposes of clemency. Such corrections shall be made by the Secretary acting through boards of civilians of the executive part of that Military Department. 2. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. 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. b. 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. c. Paragraph 3-11 provides that an enlisted person will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial. The appellate review is required to be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. 3. The DSM, chapter 7, addresses trauma and stress or related disorders. The DSM is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and provides standard criteria and common language for classification of mental disorders. 4. In 1980, the APA added PTSD to the third edition of its DSM nosologic classification scheme. Although controversial when first introduced, the PTSD diagnosis has filled an important gap in psychiatric theory and practice. From a 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." 5. 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. 6. The fifth edition of the DSM 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 criterion 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); and (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, and (6) sleep disturbance. f. Criterion F – Duration: Persistence of symptoms (in Criteria B, C, D, and E) for more than 1 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. 7. 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 discharges. It is also acknowledged that in some cases this undiagnosed condition of PTSD may have been a mitigating factor in the Soldiers' 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 a 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. 8. On 3 September 2014 in view of the foregoing information, 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 applicants' service. 9. 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? 10. 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 records 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. BCM/NRs 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. BCM/NRs 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. 11. On 25 August 2017, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to DRBs and BCM/NRs when considering requests by veterans for modification of their discharges due in whole or in part to: mental health conditions, including PTSD, traumatic brain injury, sexual assault, or sexual harassment. Boards are to give liberal consideration to veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based, in whole or in part, on those conditions or experiences. The guidance further describes evidence sources and criteria and requires boards to consider the conditions or experiences presented in evidence as potential mitigation for misconduct that led to the discharge. DISCUSSION: 1. Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process. In accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records is not empowered to set aside a conviction. Rather, it is only empowered to change the severity of the sentence imposed in the court-martial process and then only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Clemency is an act of mercy or instance of leniency to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. 2 The applicant's records reflect he deployed to Iraq twice and was found guilty by a special court-martial of feigning suicidal and homicidal ideations to avoid a third deployment. There is no evidence his court-martial proceedings and subsequent discharge were not conducted in accordance with law and regulations in effect at the time. 3. Although there is no evidence of record the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD while serving on active duty, there is also no documentation of the applicant ever having been screened for PTSD despite abundant documentation of his treatment by behavioral health professionals during his military service. Per the ARBA psychiatrist, this is of significance because many of the applicant's acting out behaviors can be better understood when viewed through the lens of PTSD. His adamant refusal to return to Iraq, his subsequent use of threats of harm toward his command and mental health providers, and his plea of guilty to the charges of feigning suicidal and homicidal ideation in order to avoid deployment can all be seen as variants of the DSM avoidance criteria used in diagnosing PTSD. 4. His VA Rating Decision shows he was granted a service-connected disability rating of 70 percent for PTSD subsequent to his discharge. 5. 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. Soldiers who suffered from PTSD and were separated solely for misconduct subsequent to a traumatic event warrant careful consideration for the possible recharacterization of their overall service. 6. Based on the information available for review, it is the ARBA Psychiatrist's opinion that the applicant suffered from PTSD while serving on active duty. As this condition is associated with avoidant behaviors, there is a nexus between his PTSD and the offenses of feigning suicidal and homicidal ideation in order to avoid deployment. The applicant's diagnosis of PTSD is considered mitigating for the offenses leading to his BCD from the Army. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160004945 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160004945 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2