IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 4 June 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140016946 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, the spouse of a deceased former service member (FSM), requests the FSM's under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states, in effect: * the FSM returned from Vietnam and went absent without leave (AWOL) * he admitted himself to a State hospital in Michigan on 12 May 1971; he also sought treatment in Arizona in 1976 * the FSM suffered from mental illness until his death on 3 October 2013 (implying he incurred posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) during his tour in Vietnam) 3. The applicant provides: * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) * marriage certificate * death certificate * five pages of documents from the State Hospital in Michigan, dating from 1971 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The FSM was inducted into the Army of the United States on 23 April 1970. His records are incomplete but, based upon what is available, as well as entries in medical records co-located with his official military personnel file (OMPF), it appears he completed basic combat training (BCT) at Fort Knox, KY. It is also indicated he was assigned to Fort Leonard Wood following BCT, presumably for advanced individual training. There are no orders showing the award of any military occupational specialty, however one document in his OMPF states his MOS was 12A (Pioneer). The highest rank/grade shown is private first class (PFC)/E-3. 3. Following his assignment at Fort Leonard Wood, in or around September 1970, he appears to have been reassigned to the U.S. Army Overseas Replacement Station, Oakland, CA. He was then sent to Vietnam. His medical records contain an entry showing he turned in those records to his unit dispensary in Vietnam on 24 October 1970. The entry states he was assigned to Company C, 31st Engineer Battalion. A review of his available medical service records shows he sought medical treatment on 20 February 1971, wherein amongst other health issues he requested medication for his nerves. He self-reported he had not slept in five nights. There are no treatment notes available to show he received treatment for his nerves. 4. In his initial application to the Board, the FSM affirmed he remained in Vietnam for about 6 months; long enough to be eligible for Rest and Recuperation (R&R) leave back to the U.S. He apparently left Vietnam for R&R leave in or around April 1971. The FSM also stated he went to the State Hospital while on R&R leave. Documents from the State Hospital indicate he was there in mid-May 1971. 5. In his initial application to the Board, he confirmed he turned himself in and was returned to military control at Fort Riley, KS. 6. Special Orders (SO) Number 271, dated 28 September 1971, issued by Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division (Mechanized) and Fort Riley, show the FSM was returned to military control on effective 23 September 1971. He was assigned to the U.S. Army Personnel Control Facility at Fort Riley. 7. On 27 September 1971, the FSM's commander preferred court-martial charges for two specifications of AWOL: * from 18 September 1970 to 1 October 1970 from the U.S. Army Overseas Replacement Station, Oakland, CA * from 3 April 1971 to 23 September 1971 from Company C, 31st Engineer Battalion, located in Vietnam 8. In an undated document titled Statement of AWOL, the FSM confirmed he has been advised of his rights. He elected to acknowledge the periods of AWOL for which he was charged. 9. On 21 October 1971, he consulted with counsel and, subsequent to receiving legal counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel). 10. In his request for discharge, he indicated he: * had not been subjected to any coercion * understood if the discharge request was approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration * understood he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws * elected to submit a statement in his own behalf; his statement is not available for review 11. On 3 November 1971, the separation authority approved his request for discharge in lieu of court-martial and directed the FSM receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 19 November 1971, he was discharged accordingly. 12. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged UOTHC in accordance with the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. This form shows he completed 1 years and 15 days of net active service and had a total of 192 days of lost time. His service in Vietnam as well as his awards and decorations are listed as unknown. 13. His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) does not show his date of promotion to private first class (PFC)/pay grade E-3. His records have his date of rank (DOR) to private (PV2)/E-2 as 23 August 1970. 14. The applicant provides medical documents from the FSM's stay at a Michigan State Hospital in May 1971. A document which appears to be an intake form which essentially states: * the FSM was 20 years old, small in stature, and appeared frightened/nervous * he spoke in a near whisper, with hesitation, and a tremor in his voice * he had been back in the U.S. for slightly more than a month because he was unable to adjust to conditions in Vietnam * at that point he had been in the Army for a year, of which 6 months were spent in Vietnam * he was awaiting discharge based upon his inability to adjust to military life and had retained a lawyer to help * he had been given tranquilizers prior to going to Vietnam due to feelings of apprehension * once in Vietnam, he started on heroin; the FSM stated he had not taken heroin since his return * the FSM always considered himself a nervous person; he had dropped out of 9th grade because he was unable to cope * prior to entering the Army, he worked in a small tubing factory; his employer was aware of his difficulties and did not pressure him * the FSM felt embarrassed and ashamed for his failure in the Army * he recognized he was having severe difficulties adjusting to civilian life and did not feel capable of holding a job 15. The applicant provides a psychiatric evaluation, completed on 17 May 1971 by a medical doctor, who provides more details as to the FSM's mental state. a. A Summary of History was given, which states, in effect: * FMS was the oldest and got along with his family * he quit school because he began to get nervous and could not keep up with classmates * he claimed he "got the shakes" during the time he was in school, but did not elaborate * he was drafted and sent to Vietnam; he abhors killing and believes he was able to avoid killing anyone while he was there * the FSM said he began taking heroin a month after arrival; he took it 24 hours a day so he could just act without thinking * during a "bombing raid" one of his friends was critically wounded; he saw him carried away with "part of his head open" (emphasis added) * his sergeant ordered him to clean up the debris, which included pieces of flesh and several limbs (emphasis added) * since that incident, he began to have nightmares; he took shots of heroin to be able to sleep (emphasis added) * the FSM claimed his outlook on life changed after his tour in Vietnam and he was now a completely different person * he felt depressed and was often confused (emphasis added) b. The FSM's mental status was described as: * blunted affect, crest-fallen face, and soft voice * his mood was mostly depressed * his thoughts were loosely associated, especially when speaking of his Vietnam experiences (emphasis added) * he would become lost in thought and evade some issues (emphasis added) * his thoughts were mostly about his experiences in Vietnam, his "shattered dreams" and his "inability to cope with things as they are now" (emphasis added) c. Under the heading of Formulation, the psychiatrist wrote: * the FSM had a poor self-concept and acts immaturely * the low self-image coupled with the stress of his Vietnam experiences made him unable to cope * his behavior made the doctor suspect a latent schizophrenia process, but an anxiety reaction could not be ruled out; further evaluation was needed d. The diagnostic impression was the FSM suffered from anxiety neurosis. Also noted is "rule out schizophrenia, latent." 16. The applicant provides a summary of tests administered to the FSM on 29 June 1971. In the summary, titled Personality Functioning and Recommendations, it essentially states: * the FSM responded to the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory in a manner suggesting a number of significant personality problems * he reported a number of unusual physical and emotional feelings and demonstrated severe depression * he seemed prone to developing functional complaints of a physical nature * he acted immature, demanding, rebellious, and nonconforming * he was resentful, suspicious of others, plagued by feelings of unreality, severe agitation, guilt and high anxiety (emphasis added) * the FSM was functioning at a normal level of intelligence, but was severely handicapped by emotional problems * he could best function in a job where he did not have to work with too many people (emphasis added) 17. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial at any time after the charges have been preferred. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. b. Paragraph 3-7a provides an honorable discharge is given when the quality of the Soldier’s service has generally met standards of acceptable conduct and duty performance. c. 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. 18. PTSD can occur after someone goes through a traumatic event like combat, assault, or disaster. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and it provides standard criteria and common language for the classification of mental disorders. In 1980, the APA added PTSD to the third edition of its DSM-III nosologic classification scheme. Although controversial when first introduced, the PTSD diagnosis has filled an important gap in psychiatric theory and practice. From an historical perspective, the significant change ushered in by the PTSD concept was the stipulation that the etiological agent was outside the individual (i.e., a traumatic event) rather than an inherent individual weakness (i.e., a traumatic neurosis). The key to understanding the scientific basis and clinical expression of PTSD is the concept of "trauma." 19. 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. 20. The DSM fifth revision (DSM-5) was released in May 2013. This revision includes changes to the diagnostic criteria for PTSD and Acute Stress Disorder. The PTSD diagnostic criteria were revised to take into account things that have been learned from scientific research and clinical experience. The revised diagnostic criteria for PTSD include a history of exposure to a traumatic event that meets specific stipulations and symptoms from each of four symptom clusters: intrusion, avoidance, negative alterations in cognitions and mood, and alterations in arousal and reactivity. The sixth criterion concerns duration of symptoms; the seventh assesses functioning; and the eighth criterion clarifies symptoms as not attributable to a substance or co-occurring medical condition. a. Criterion A, stressor: The person was exposed to: death, threatened death, actual or threatened serious injury, or actual or threatened sexual violence, as follows: (one required) (1) Direct exposure. (2) Witnessing, in person. (3) Indirectly, by learning that a close relative or close friend was exposed to trauma. If the event involved actual or threatened death, it must have been violent or accidental. (4) Repeated or extreme indirect exposure to aversive details of the event(s), usually in the course of professional duties (e.g., first responders, collecting body parts; professionals repeatedly exposed to details of child abuse). This does not include indirect non-professional exposure through electronic media, television, movies, or pictures. b. Criterion B, intrusion symptoms: The traumatic event is persistently re-experienced in the following way(s): (one required) (1) Recurrent, involuntary, and intrusive memories. (2) Traumatic nightmares. (3) Dissociative reactions (e.g., flashbacks) which may occur on a continuum from brief episodes to complete loss of consciousness. (4) Intense or prolonged distress after exposure to traumatic reminders. (5) Marked physiologic reactivity after exposure to trauma-related stimuli. c. Criterion C, avoidance: Persistent effortful avoidance of distressing trauma-related stimuli after the event: (one required) (1) Trauma-related thoughts or feelings. (2) Trauma-related external reminders (e.g., people, places, conversations, activities, objects, or situations). d. Criterion D, negative alterations in cognitions and mood: Negative alterations in cognitions and mood that began or worsened after the traumatic event: (two required) (1) Inability to recall key features of the traumatic event (usually dissociative amnesia; not due to head injury, alcohol, or drugs). (2) Persistent (and often distorted) negative beliefs and expectations about oneself or the world (e.g., "I am bad," "The world is completely dangerous"). (3) Persistent distorted blame of self or others for causing the traumatic event or for resulting consequences. (4) Persistent negative trauma-related emotions (e.g., fear, horror, anger, guilt, or shame). (5) Markedly diminished interest in (pre-traumatic) significant activities. Feeling alienated from others (e.g., detachment or estrangement). (6) Constricted affect: persistent inability to experience positive emotions. e. Criterion E, alterations in arousal and reactivity: Trauma-related alterations in arousal and reactivity that began or worsened after the traumatic event: (two required) (1) Irritable or aggressive behavior (2) Self-destructive or reckless behavior (3) Hypervigilance (4) Exaggerated startle response (5) Problems in concentration (6) Sleep disturbance f. Criterion F, duration: Persistence of symptoms (in Criteria B, C, D, and E) for more than one month. g. Criterion G, functional significance: Significant symptom-related distress or functional impairment (e.g., social, occupational). h. Criterion H, exclusion: Disturbance is not due to medication, substance 21. As a result of the extensive research conducted by the medical community and the relatively recent issuance of revised criteria regarding the causes, diagnosis and treatment of PTSD the Department of Defense (DOD) acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge. It is also acknowledged that in some cases this undiagnosed condition of PTSD may have been a mitigating factor in the Soldier's misconduct which served as a catalyst for their discharge. Research has also shown that misconduct stemming from PTSD is typically based upon a spur of the moment decision resulting from temporary lapse in judgment; therefore, PTSD is not a likely cause for either premeditated misconduct or misconduct that continues for an extended period of time. 22. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged UOTHC and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider (emphasis added) in order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service. 23. 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 (emphasis added)? * 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? 24. Although the DOD acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge, it is presumed that they were properly discharged based upon the evidence that was available at the time. Conditions documented in the record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which PTSD or PTSD-related conditions may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge; those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the UOTHC characterization of service. Corrections Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service of UOTHC. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat-related PTSD or PTSD-related conditions as a causative factor in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Corrections Boards will also exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. 25. Army Regulation 600-200 (Personnel General - Enlisted Personnel Management System), in effect at the time, prescribes policy and procedures for the management of enlisted Soldiers. Included are the requirements for promotion to PFC/E-3. Paragraph 7-20 (Promotion to private first class, E-3) states the time in grade requirement for promotion to PFC/E-3 was 4 months as a PV2. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant requests the FSM's UOTHC discharge be upgraded to honorable. She states, in effect, he suffered from PTSD following his combat service in Vietnam and his mental illness continued until his death in 2013. In support of her contention, she provides evidence in the form of mental and psychiatric evaluations done near the time the FSM returned from Vietnam. 2. The applicant was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. Discharges under this chapter are due to a voluntary request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant 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. 3. 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. 4. There is evidence from the FSM's own testimony that he potentially had behavioral health issues prior to his induction into the Army when he referred to being nervous in school and eventually dropped out of high school. Nonetheless, it appears those issues were aggravated during his combat service and therefore merit consideration. 5. The evidence offered by the applicant is not a formal diagnosis of PTSD, but this is evidently because the medical documents provided date from a time before PTSD was recognized. The causes and symptoms described nonetheless fit with what is now known to be consistent with PTSD. The FSM experienced trauma while in Vietnam, specifically seeing his friend critically wounded in combat and then being required to clean up the resultant debris, which consisted of flesh and body parts. The behaviors identified by the psychiatrist and other behavioral health professional included the presence of: * traumatic nightmares * avoidance behaviors * a negative alteration of mood and affect * intrusive memories * a persistent negative self-image * problems with concentration * feeling alienated from others 6. The preponderance of the evidence strongly suggests the FSM was suffering from PTSD at the time he went AWOL. It is therefore concluded that the PTSD conditions were a causative factor in the misconduct that led to the discharge. a. After carefully weighing that fact against the severity of the FSM's misconduct, there is sufficient mitigating evidence to warrant upgrading the characterization of the applicant's service to a general discharge under honorable conditions. b. His rank should also be restored to PFC/E-3. His records do not show his DOR for PFC, but have his DOR for PV2/E-2 as 23 August 1970. The regulatory guidance in effect at the time states a Soldier could be promoted to PFC with 4 months time in grade as a PV2. Therefore, his DOR to PFC/pay grade E-3 is 23 December 1970. c. The narrative reason for his separation should not be changed nor should his lost time be negated. 7. Nevertheless, in weighing the same factors, the applicant's overall disciplinary record of 192 days of AWOL does not merit favorable consideration of a fully honorable characterization of service. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ___x____ ___x____ ___x____ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by amending his DD Form 214, for the period ending 19 November 1971, to show the following: a. his characterization of service as "General, Under Honorable Conditions"; and b. his rank/grade reflected as PFC/E-3 with an effective date of 23 December 1970. 2. The Board further determined that 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 FSM's discharge to 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140016946 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140016946 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1