BOARD DATE: 9 January 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170000757 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. 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: 9 January 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170000757 BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : 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: 9 January 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170000757 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 Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) (ASA (M&RA)) submits an application on behalf of a group of Soldiers requesting Army Board for Correction of Military Records: a. Consider whether a potential violation of Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1177 (Members diagnosed with or reasonably asserting post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and/or traumatic brain injury (TBI): medical examination required before administrative separation) occurred during these Soldiers' separation processing. b. Determine whether a diagnosis of PTSD and/or TBI should result in an upgrade of these Soldiers' characterizations of service. 2. The group application states the ASA (M&RA) was unable to confirm if these Soldiers' PTSD and TBI diagnoses were considered by the separation authority during separation processing. 3. The ASA (M&RA) provides an attached list of Soldiers who may have been affected by a potential violation of Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1177. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 January 2005. He held military occupational specialty 25U (Signal Support Systems Specialist) and served continuously through an immediate reenlistment. On 5 October 2005, he was assigned to Fort Polk, LA. 2. He deployed to Afghanistan from 6 March 2006 to 23 November 2006, and then to Iraq from 25 November 2007 to 31 December 2008. 3. On 7 June 2009, the local civilian police near Fort Polk arrested him for two counts of aggravated assault, possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute, and possession of drug paraphernalia. He was released to military control on 12 June 2009. 4. On 18 August 2009, he departed his Fort Polk unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status. He returned to military control on 20 August 2009. 5. He departed his unit again in an AWOL status on 10 September 2009 and was dropped from Army rolls on 13 October 2009. He remained AWOL until 9 August 2010, when he was placed in civilian confinement. Civilian authorities released him from civilian confinement and returned him to military control on 17 August 2010. 6. On 23 September 2010, the applicant underwent a medical examination. The examination indicated frequent nervousness and panic attacks. Also noted were his PTSD diagnosis, along with major depressive disorder, anxiety, and insomnia. The examining physician stated the applicant had a history of abusing pain medications and had been enrolled in the Army Substance Abuse Program as well as Alcoholics Anonymous; the applicant claimed he had stopped his substance abuse on his own while AWOL. 7. On 6 October 2010, the applicant’s Fort Polk commander notified the applicant of his intent to separate him under the provisions of paragraph 14-12b (A Pattern of Misconduct), chapter 14 (Separation for Misconduct), Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations). This action was based on the following misconduct: * AWOL from 18 to 20 August 2009 * AWOL from 10 September 2009 to 9 August 2010 * civilian police arrest on 12 June 2009 (sic) for two counts of aggravated assault with a handgun, possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession with intent to distribute * civilian police arrest for domestic abuse battery on 16 August 2010 8. On 7 October 2010, the applicant consulted with a military lawyer and affirmed he had been advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action; of the rights available to him, and the effect of any action he may take to waive those rights. a. As a result, he elected to waive consideration of his case by an administrative separation board and elected not to submit statements in his own behalf. b. He affirmed he understood he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if given a general under honorable conditions separation, and further understood he could become ineligible for many or all benefits as a Veteran, under both Federal and State law, should he receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 9. On or about 3 November 2010, the separation authority approved the commander's recommendation for separation and directed the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions character of service. He was discharged accordingly on 9 November 2010. 10. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he completed 4 years, 10 months, and 17 days of net active creditable service, with lost time from 18 August 2009 to 20 August 2009 and 10 September 2009 to 9 August 2010. a. He was awarded or authorized: * Army Commendation Medal * Army Achievement Medal (2nd Award) * Joint Meritorious Unit Award * Valorous Unit Award * Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award) * National Defense Service Medal * Afghanistan Campaign Medal with two bronze service stars * Global War on Terrorism Service Medal * Iraq Campaign Medal with one bronze service star * Army Service Ribbon * Overseas Service Ribbon (2nd Award) * North Atlantic Treaty Organization Medal b. In the section titled "Special Additional Information" the following is reflected: * item 24 (Character of Service) – under other than honorable conditions * item 25 (Separation Authority) – AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c (1) (Commission of a Serious Offense – AWOL) * item 26 (Separation Code (SPD)) – "JKD" * item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – "Misconduct, (AWOL)" 11. On 9 June 2013, he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) requesting the upgrade of his character of service to general, under honorable conditions and cited his diagnosis of PTSD. The ADRB conducted a records review and determined his discharge was both proper and equitable; the ADRB denied his request. 12. On 19 May 2015, the applicant again requested the ADRB to upgrade his character of service. He personally appeared before the ADRB without counsel on 8 August 2016. The ADRB again denied his request, but approved the following administrative corrections: * amend item 26 (SPD) by replacing "JKD" with "JKA" * change narrative reason for separation in item 28 from "Misconduct, AWOL" to "Pattern of Misconduct" 13. On 21 February 2017, the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) psychiatrist completed a medical advisory opinion, which stated: a. The Case Management Division (CMD) requested a review of the applicant’s case to determine, in effect, whether: * the available record reasonably support the existence, while on active duty, of PTSD, or other behavioral health condition, warranting referral into the Disability Evaluation System (DES) * any conditions identified fail medical retention standards per AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) * any conditions are mitigating factors in the misconduct that resulted in the applicant's adverse discharge * prior to separation and in accordance with Title 10, section 1177, was the required medical examination with a behavioral health (BH) component conducted * any additional information deemed appropriate b. A review of available medical records indicated the following: * there was no evidence he failed medical retention standards while on active duty * he was diagnosed with several BH disorders, including combat-related PTSD, by both the military and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) c. The ARBA psychiatrist determined the applicant had PTSD and it was mitigating for some of the offenses which led to his adverse discharge. The following was noted: * PTSD is associated with avoidant behaviors; it is more likely than not that a nexus exists between his PTSD and the offense of AWOL * PTSD is also associated with the use of illicit drugs and alcohol for self-medication; there is more likely than not a nexus between his PTSD and the offense of marijuana possession * PTSD is not mitigating for the offenses of possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute, and domestic abuse battery 14. On 22 February 2017, CMD provided the applicant a copy of the ARBA medical advisory opinion for review and comment; he submitted the following response via email: * he was under the impression a PTSD evaluation was different from a command-directed mental evaluation; in addition, he saw no record that his evaluation was reviewed by the separation authority * he was not offered legal counsel until after he had waived his rights; when he waived his rights, he was under the influence of Elavil (nerve pain and antidepressant medication), Prozac (used to treat depression and panic disorder), and Remeron (antidepressant) * he finds it odd that he could be cleared for discharge with these medications being prescribed; chronic PTSD should have mandated the separation authority to carefully review his case * he asked to be provided the documents reviewed by the ARBA psychiatrist to understand how his case met legal requirements * he noted he was a Soldier with PTSD who received an under other than honorable character of service within 24 months of leaving a combat theater; in addition he was being medicated 15. On 22 March 2017, the ARBA psychiatrist provided the following response to the applicant's rebuttal: a. The applicant stated he underwent a command-directed mental status evaluation, and asserted he was under the influence of Elavil, Prozac, and Remeron. He further stated that he found it odd that he could be cleared for separation with the aforementioned medications still being prescribed. A review of his medical records indicates on the date of his command-directed mental status evaluation (23 September 2010) he was not being prescribed any psychoactive medications. b. The applicant also claimed his PTSD diagnosis should have mandated a review by the separation authority. His medical records show, at the time of his command-directed mental status evaluation, his condition had improved sufficiently to no longer be diagnosed with chronic PTSD. * the applicant was diagnosed with chronic PTSD on 16 May 2007; he carried this diagnosis until 14 June 2009, at which time the diagnosis was amended to adjustment disorder with disturbance of emotions * on 8 September 2010, BH saw him on a walk-in basis; his diagnosis was affirmed as adjustment disorder with disturbance of emotions and insomnia * on 23 September 2010, when he received his command-directed mental evaluation, his diagnosis was listed as adjustment disorder with disturbance of emotions and insomnia related to Axis I/II mental disorder (nonorganic) 16. In or around April 2017, the applicant submitted documents for the Board's consideration. a. Document titled "Introduction" gave a summary of the applicant's military service, and noted certain significant events: * he was arrested with a codefendant for the use or sale of marijuana; he did not fail a mandated urinalysis at the time of his arrest and was not offered Veterans Court for the offenses charged * he had extra duty imposed as a nonjudicial punishment with no written form of disciplinary action; after an excess of 50 days (of extra duty), he went AWOL * he was prescribed numerous psychiatric medications before and during the time he went AWOL; the side-effects of seclusion and evasion were definitely seen as mitigating for his AWOL * after he returned from AWOL, he was charged with domestic abuse; this charge was later dropped; he was prescribed heavy doses of antidepressant/psychotropic medications * he was administratively discharged without any record of a PTSD evaluation, or a review by the separation authority; the reported misconduct occurred within 24 months of his return from Iraq; he had active Prozac and Elavil prescriptions at the time of his discharge * the applicant unknowingly waived his rights at the time of his discharge because he was under the influence of his medications; he was not properly offered legal counsel during separation processing * he continues to receive therapy at the VA for combat-related PTSD and depression b. Document, titled, "Statement of Facts" essentially describes: * the applicant being diagnosed with chronic PTSD, insomnia, and depression, and details the medications he was prescribed * notes he was awarded an Army Commendation Medal and received a positive noncommissioned officer evaluation report * addresses his arrest and indicates his codefendant was in an altercation with the civilian police; his codefendant failed his urinalysis test; the applicant passed * a search by the civilian police resulted in charges of drug paraphernalia and marijuana possession; a recent background check revealed he had no civilian convictions * he accepted nonjudicial punishment and reiterated his punishment included about 50 days of extra duty; he asserts he was under the influence of his prescribed medications when he went AWOL * he returned from AWOL after the civilian police arrested him for domestic abuse battery; a background check also does not show a conviction for domestic abuse * he asserts his discharge was an injustice because he was verbally told they would impose a court-martial if he wanted to request legal counsel; he was offered an under other than honorable conditions discharge in lieu of court-martial, but no charges had been filed * his discharge can also be seen as erroneous because a proper PTSD evaluation was not performed as part of his separation processing * on 23 September 2010, he underwent a command-directed mental status evaluation; on 29 September 2010, he was prescribed Elavil and Prozac due to chronic PTSD and insomnia symptoms; medications were reissued on 29 October 2010 * there is no record that his case was reviewed by the separation authority; he should have had a thorough medical board evaluation due to his chronic PTSD diagnosis c. The applicant included a self-authored statement: * he gives the dates he enlisted and was discharged; he notes he was stationed at Fort Polk as a 25U and served in Afghanistan; he was diagnosed with PTSD and other related conditions * he describes his experiences while deployed and details some of his PTSD symptoms; he asserts he was so medicated at the time of his discharge, he was not in his right state of mind; he further claims he did not remember "signing (his) rights away to legal counsel" * he was discharged with three active medications * since his separation, he has used his Post 9/11 GI Bill to obtain "a wide variety of education"; he is married and has a 7 year old stepdaughter; he works full time as an electronics technician; his goal is to upgrade his discharge, mainly for self-pride d. He provides a document that shows he has no criminal or sex offender records. He also has included 27 pages of medical records, a copy of his résumé, and a letter showing he was offered a position as a communications electronics technician with a rapid transit organization. e. Four letters of support: (1) The applicant's wife, who describes the effects of PTSD in their relationship, while struggling with her own medical conditions. Despite his struggles, the applicant has accomplished much. (2) Three former Soldiers who served with the applicant at Fort Polk. All affirm he was an outstanding Soldier who was highly motivated. * one former Soldier indicates he deployed with the applicant to both Afghanistan and Iraq; he was aware the applicant had PTSD and was prescribed medications; after this, the applicant's motivation declined * when the applicant was deployed to Iraq, the writer thought it odd they would send a Soldier who was on PTSD medications * he heard the applicant was arrested, also that he went AWOL; they lost touch for a while * since the applicant's "wrongly given discharge" they have reconnected; the applicant has completely changed his life, although hindered by his adverse discharge * the writer believes the Army misdiagnosed the applicant, prescribed medications that "messed up his ability to perform his duties," and that this led to him being treated as a "bad Soldier" * he asserts the applicant should have gotten proper treatment during the separation process; "it is our duty as leaders to ensure no Soldier gets left behind" REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1177, states: a. Medical Examination Required: (1) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department shall ensure that a member of the armed forces under the jurisdiction of the Secretary who has been deployed overseas in support of a contingency operation, or sexually assaulted, during the previous 24 months, and who is diagnosed by a physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, licensed clinical social worker, or psychiatric advanced practice registered nurse as experiencing PTSD or TBI or who otherwise reasonably alleges, based on the service of the member while deployed, or based on such sexual assault, the influence of such a condition, receives a medical examination to evaluate a diagnosis of PTSD or TBI. (2) A member covered by paragraph (1) shall not be administratively separated under conditions other than honorable, including an administrative separation in lieu of court-martial, until the results of the medical examination have been reviewed by appropriate authorities responsible for evaluating, reviewing, and approving the separation case, as determined by the Secretary concerned. (3) In a case involving PTSD, the medical examination shall be performed by a clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, licensed clinical social worker, or psychiatric advanced practice registered nurse. In cases involving TBI, the medical examination may be performed by a physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, or other health care professional, as appropriate. b. Purpose of Medical Examination. The medical examination required by subsection (a) shall assess whether the effects of PTSD or TBI constitute matters in extenuation that relate to the basis for administrative separation under conditions other than honorable or the overall characterization of service of the member as other than honorable. c. Inapplicability to Proceedings Under Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The medical examination and procedures required by this section do not apply to courts-martial or other proceedings conducted pursuant to the UCMJ. 2. AR 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is given when the quality of the Soldier’s service has generally met standards of acceptable conduct and duty performance. 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 3-7c states a discharge under other than honorable conditions is based on an administrative separation from the service, and may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial. When a Soldier is to be discharged UOTHC, the separation authority will direct an immediate reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. d. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and the commission of a serious offense (to include abuse of illegal drugs). Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it was clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. 3. PTSD can occur after someone goes through a traumatic event like combat, assault, or disaster. a. The 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. b. 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." 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 he or she has been exposed to an event that is considered traumatic. a. Clinical experience with the PTSD diagnosis has shown 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. b. 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 Fifth Revision of DSM-5 was released in May 2013. This updated edition included 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) * Irritable or aggressive behavior * Self-destructive or reckless behavior * Hypervigilance * Exaggerated startle response * Problems in concentration * 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. 6. 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. a. This acknowledgement is the result of the extensive research conducted by the medical community, along with the relatively recent issuance of revised criteria regarding the causes, diagnosis, and treatment of PTSD. b. It is also recognized that, in some cases, this undiagnosed condition of PTSD may have been a mitigating factor in the misconduct that served as a catalyst for the Soldier's discharge. c. Of note, research has demonstrated 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 extended periods. 7. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense gave written guidance to Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs). The memorandum directed them to consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations, and mitigating factors when taking action on requests for upgrades in the character of service for former service members who had a valid diagnosis of PTSD. 8. On 25 August 2017, the Office of the Under Secretary 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; TBI; sexual assault; and sexual harassment. Boards were directed to give liberal consideration to veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part to 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 that misconduct which led to the discharge. 9. BCM/NRs are not courts, nor are they investigative agencies. Therefore, the determinations are 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 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. a. 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. b. 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 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. c. PTSD is not a likely a 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. 11. AR 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. a. Paragraph 2-9 contains guidance on the burden of proof. It states, in pertinent part, that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity, which is that what the Army did was correct. b. The ABCMR is not an investigative body and decides cases based on the evidence that is presented in the military records provided and the independent evidence submitted with the application. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. DISCUSSION: 1. The available evidence shows the applicant committed multiple acts of misconduct, to include AWOL, aggravated assault with a handgun, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Because of his misconduct, his chain of command initiated separation action under the provisions of chapter 14, AR 635-200. It appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met (to include providing him access to counsel) and the evidence indicates the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The characterization of service he received also appears to have been commensurate with the reason for his discharge. 2. The applicant asserts he was diagnosed with chronic PTSD and was under the influence of psychotropic drugs while undergoing separation processing. a. The ARBA psychiatrist conducted a review of the applicant's available medical records. This review found: (1) The applicant met medical retention standards at the time of his separation. (2) While he had been diagnosed with chronic PTSD in May 2007, his symptoms had improved to the extent that his diagnosis was revised to adjustment disorder with disturbance of emotions and insomnia. (3) Although the applicant contended he was "not in (his) right state of mind" due to the psychotropic drugs he was prescribed (in effect, alleging he was unable to fully understand and participate in separation proceedings), his medical records confirmed he had no active prescriptions when he received his command directed mental status evaluation. The applicant further asserts he was prescribed psychotropic medications after his command directed mental status evaluation, but offers no documentary evidence to support his claim. b. The applicant's periods of AWOL and his use of illicit drugs more likely than not were the result of his PTSD. His other misconduct, to include possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute as well as possession of drug paraphernalia, were likely not due to his chronic PTSD. 3. Because the applicant underwent a command directed mental status evaluation as well as a separation physical during separation processing, it appears the requirements of Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1177, were fulfilled. 4. The applicant contends there is no record the separation authority properly considered his PTSD before directing him to receive an under other than honorable conditions character of service. The Board begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. As such, unless evidence is presented to the contrary, it is presumed the separation authority took appropriate steps to review all documents that were submitted with his separation packet; this would have included the applicant's command directed mental status evaluation. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170000757 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170000757 17 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2