IN THE CASE OF:  	  

		BOARD DATE:  10 February 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140005220


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 an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) for the period ending 3 December 1980.

2.  The applicant states that the characterization of his service was inequitable as he was suffering from severe Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) which resulted from his service in the Republic of Vietnam.  His disciplinary problems during this time period were a direct reflection of a mental health condition which went untreated and unrecognized for years.  His service from 9 December 1968 to 18 October 1970 was exemplary.  That period encompassed his Vietnam combat service, for which he was awarded 14 Air Medals.  His PTSD which has since been diagnosed; went untreated for many years during his second period of service.  He did not desert because he as a bad Soldier; he deserted because his judgment was impaired by his untreated mental health condition.  He would also like this Board to consider that during that era, PTSD was largely unrecognized by the Army and there were no true mental health care programs for Soldiers suffering from said condition.  In addition, he was briefly treated for "adjustment reaction" in 1970, but received no follow-on care.

3.  The applicant provides:

* Headquarters, 1st Aviation Brigade General Orders Number 695, dated 7 March 1972
* a Standard Form (SF) 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care)
* three character reference letters rendered in the late 1990s

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 December 1968.  He completed his basic and advanced training and was awarded military occupation specialty 67N (UH-1 Helicopter Repairman).  He deployed and served two tours in the Republic of Vietnam, totaling 1 year, 10 months and 10 days of foreign service.

3.  On 13 October 1970, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for being disobeying a lawful order by driving 70 miles per hour in a posted 50 mile per hour zone.

4.  On 18 October 1970, he was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  On 19 October 1968, he reenlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 6 years.

5.  On 17 November 1970, NJP was imposed against him for leaving his sentinel post.

6.  On 27 November 1970, NJP was imposed against him for two incidents of breaking restriction and one incident of wrongfully communicating a threat to another Soldier.

7.  The applicant's record contains and he also provides Headquarters, 1st Aviation Brigade General Orders Number 695, dated 7 March 1972, which awarded him the Air Medal 2nd through 14th award for the period 20 January to 2 June 1970.

8.  The applicant provides an SF 600 which shows he sought treatment at the Mental Health Clinic, Fort Hood, TX, on 19 June 1973.  This document indicates that he was self-referred, the impression was "adjustment reaction" and recommendations were "ongoing."

9.  The applicant was reported absent without leave (AWOL) from the 21st Adjutant General Replacement Detachment in Germany on 16 September 1973 and dropped from the rolls of that organization as a deserter on 15 October 1973.

10.  On 3 November 1980, by order of the Secretary of the Army, the Chief, Records Services Division, sent a letter to the applicant to inform him that:

	a.  he was charged with desertion from the United States Army effective 15 October 1973 from the 21st Adjutant General Replacement Detachment in Germany and that a review of the applicant's records showed that he was eligible for a discharge in absentia.

	b.  it was anticipated that his discharge would be UOTHC and that he would be issued a discharge certificate.  The receipt of such discharge could deprive him of many or all of the benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA) and of his rights and benefits as a veteran under Federal and State laws.

	c.  prior to the issuance of this discharge certificate, he was being offered an opportunity to submit a statement in his own behalf.

	d.  if a reply to this letter was not received within 45 days from the date of delivery, action would be taken to complete his discharge.

11.  On 13 November 1980, the applicant submitted a response to the letter above.  He stated there were numerous reasons why he went AWOL.

	a.  He joined the Army because of the war in Vietnam and the fact that he had a brother and two brothers-in-law who were serving at the time.  He spent 2 years stationed with his brother in Vietnam prior to being reassigned to Fort Hood, TX.

	b.  Shortly after returning to the United States, the applicant was wed.  Immediately after starting duty in the States he had to start consulting with a doctor because of a severe back problem and nervous condition he had acquired and had caused him to lose a total of 40 pounds in a short time.  He attested that the doctors did not seem to help or care.

	c.  Later, he consulted with a civilian doctor and was treated for psychiatric reasons which the doctor said caused his earlier conditions.  While the applicant was at Fort Hood he went to see a psychiatrist that told him that he did not think he could help. 

	d.  The thing that really made him decide to go AWOL was the fact that he received orders to be stationed in Germany and being told that it would probably be a couple of years before his wife could join him there.  He didn't think he could stand being separated from his loved ones for four more years after Vietnam.  He felt it would be better for both him and the Army if he just walked out.

12.  On 3 December 1980, that applicant was notified that he would be discharged UOTHC.  The statement the applicant had submitted did not contain sufficient evidence to warrant the issuance of a different category of discharge and action had been taken to execute his discharge in absentia effective 3 December 1980.

13.  The applicant's record contains a DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) which shows that he was discharged UOTHC on 3 December 1980, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, due to Misconduct/Desertion.  He had a total of 2,633 days of lost time due to AWOL.

14.  The applicant's record is void of evidence and he has not provided any evidence showing that he was diagnosed with PTSD at any time.

15.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards established suspense.

16.  He provides three character reference letters: 

	a.  27 April 1997, the applicant's brother (and also a retired Army sergeant first class/E-7) stated that he served 48 months in Vietnam and saw the effect the war had on many of the Soldiers such as the applicant who were put in daily life or death situations like the applicant who flew into hot areas as a crew chief and door gunner on Huey helicopters.  The applicant served approximately 2 years in Vietnam not because he had to, but because he felt it was his duty as an American.  Being the applicant's brother he felt that more than anyone he could testify as to the effect the Vietnam War had on the applicant.  The torment and torture that the applicant and other veterans endured had a drastic effect on their lives and actions today.  He is sure that whatever the applicant had to do and what he saw in Vietnam caused him to have doubt in the government, and is the only reason that he went AWOL.  Prior to Vietnam, the applicant's main objective was to make career out of the Army.  The applicant is now in prison, and for the first time is seeking help for the adverse reaction the war had on him, this is a first step for him to bring his life together, and has a wife and six-year-old daughter that will be depending on him when he is released from prison in approximately one year.  The upgrade will be necessary for him to seek help through the VA for his problems and to become a productive member of society once again.

	b.  1 September 1998, a friend of the applicant rendered a letter wherein he stated there was a dramatic change in the applicant when he returned from Vietnam.  He was lost in his thoughts and was disoriented as to what was taking place around him.  He was confused when the applicant volunteered for a second tour to Vietnam, especially since he hated it so much.  In conversations about Vietnam, the applicant stated "People just don't understand here what is going on there.  When he returned from Vietnam the second the applicant was no longer friendly and was very quiet.  He would suddenly have outbursts of anger and would become violent even to his friends, including the author.  He was a totally different person with a notable disdain toward the government and law enforcement officers.  He rarely showed love to anyone, not even his wife and family.  The author felt that the applicant never recovered from his Vietnam experience and whatever happened to him there destroyed whatever hope he had to lead a normal and productive life.  His happiness seemed to be destroyed.
The author hoped this letter would be of good use in determining the applicant's need for services for his prolonged recovery.

	c.  In an undated letter, the applicant's brother-in-law (and also a retired Army first sergeant/E-8) stated he had know the applicant since he was 13-years-old.  He joined the Army and served two tours in Vietnam as a helicopter door gunner and crew chief on Huey helicopters.  He saw a lot of action while in Vietnam and served his tours honorably.  Not until he returned from Vietnam did his problems start.  He began drinking heavily and spending most of his free time in bars.  He had a young wife and baby, marriage problems began and then later ended in divorce.  He developed distrust for authority and eventually went AWOL from the Army and received a UOTHC discharge.  The author felt that the applicant's Vietnam experience was the cause of all his problems.

17.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions (a pattern of misconduct consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions), a pattern of misconduct (consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline), commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is 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.

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 use, or other illness. 

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 UOTHC 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 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?
* 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 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 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 causeal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's discharge proceedings, for misconduct, were conducted in accordance with law and regulations in effect at the time.  The characterization of the applicant's discharge was commensurate with the reason for discharge and overall record of military service in accordance with the governing regulations in effect at the time.

2.  At the time of the applicant's discharge, PTSD was largely unrecognized by the medical community and DoD.  However, 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.

3.  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.  A review of the applicant's record and the evidence that he provided shows that he was subjected to the ordeals of war while serving in the RVN.  However, there are no documented incidents of specific traumatic events.

5.  The applicant's record is void of any evidence and he has not provided sufficient medical evidence that shows the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD/PTSD-related symptoms by a competent mental health professional at any time.  Therefore, there is no reason to presume the applicant suffered from PTSD at the time of discharge. 

6.  In view of the foregoing and in the absence of a PTSD diagnosis, it cannot be concluded that PTSD conditions were a causative factor in the misconduct that led to the discharge.  After carefully weighing that fact against the severity of the applicant's misconduct, there is insufficient mitigating evidence to warrant upgrading the characterization of the applicant's service to a general discharge under honorable conditions.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____X___  ____X___  ____X___ DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.



      _______ _   X______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140003053



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140005220



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1