IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	 6 January 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140006549 


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, in effect, an upgrade of his discharge under conditions other than honorable to a general discharge.  He also requests, in effect, correction of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) to show he was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) and any additional awards he may have earned and to show his current social security number (SSN).  

2.  He states he was told his discharge would be upgraded to a general discharge after a military review board reviewed his records.  This was stated in his court papers.  He was charged with being absent without leave (AWOL).  He states, in effect, his discharge should be upgraded due to his mental stress at the time of discharge and possible undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and alcohol and drug abuse after he returned from Vietnam in 1969.  He states that when he came home, the Army didn't say anything about PTSD, but he thinks this is what he had.  He also states his CIB "and some other things" are not listed on his DD Form 214.   

3.  He provides:

* orders 
* page one of a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet)
* DD Form 214
* webpage listing signs of PTSD
* documents related to the claim for compensation he submitted to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
* letter from the National Personnel Records Center

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.  On 27 December 1966, prior to enlisting in the Regular Army (RA), the applicant completed a DD Form 398 (Statement of Personal History).  In the space provided for his SSN, he entered "XXX-X0-2XXX."  

3.  On 9 January 1967, he enlisted in the RA for a period of 3 years.  He was assigned an Army service number (ASN) as the primary source of identification.

4.  He received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for:

* being AWOL from 9 to 10 April 1967
* failing to perform his required duty on 5 June 1967
* being AWOL from 4 August to 24 September 1967
* being AWOL from 29 September to 2 October 1967
* being AWOL from 9 October to 10 November 1967

5.  From 22 January to 17 December 1968, he was assigned to duty in Vietnam.  During this period he served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 64A (Light Vehicle Driver) with the 543rd Transportation Company (22 to 31 January), 120th Transportation Company (1 February to 18 May and 21 August to 27 December), and 151st Transportation Company (19 May to 20 August).

6.  On 26 February 1969, he received NJP for:

* being AWOL from 17 to 21 February 1969
* disobeying a direct order from a commissioned officer on 25 February 1969
* failure to repair on 26 February 1969

7.  On 9 June 1969, Headquarters, Special Troops, Fort Dix, NJ, issued Summary Court-Martial Order Number 491.  The order shows that, pursuant to his plea, he was found guilty of being AWOL from 10 March to 21 May 1969.  

8.  On 14 January 1970, Headquarters, Special Troops, Fort Dix, NJ, issued Special Court-Martial Order Number 63.  The order shows that, pursuant to his plea, he was found guilty of being AWOL from 7 July to 8 December 1969.  

9.  Item 38 (Record of Assignments) of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows, in part:

* on 26 March 1970, he was assigned to Company C, 5th Battalion, 31st Infantry, 197th Infantry Brigade, Fort Benning, GA, in duty MOS 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman)
* on 8 July 1970, he was dropped from the rolls (DFR) by reason of desertion
* on 9 August 1970, he was assigned to the Special Processing Battalion, Special Troops, Fort Dix, NJ, as a duty Soldier
* on 7 September 1970, he was in a casual status en route to the U.S. Army Pacific (USARPAC)
* on 18 September 1970, he was assigned to the 173rd Adjutant General Replacement Detachment, 173rd Airborne Brigade, USARPAC
* on 24 October 1970, he was DFR by reason of desertion
* on 21 February 1974, he was in a casual status
* on 3 April 1974, he was in a casual status assigned to Company A, U.S. Army Personnel Control Facility, Fort Dix, NJ

10.  A DD Form 458, dated 25 February 1974, shows he was charged with being AWOL from 24 September 1970 to 21 February 1974.  

11.  On 28 February 1974, he consulted with counsel who advised him of the basis for his contemplated trial by court-martial and the maximum punishment authorized under the UCMJ and of the possible effects of an undesirable discharge if a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial were approved.  

12.  After consulting with counsel, he requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10.  

	a.  He acknowledged he understood that:
* if his request was accepted he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate
* as a result of such a discharge, he might be deprived of many or all Army benefits, many or all benefits administered by the VA, and his rights and benefits as a veteran under Federal and State law
* he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of an undesirable discharge

	b.  He elected not to submit statements in his own behalf.

13.  On 25 March 1974, the separation authority approved his request and directed he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 

14.  On 10 April 1974, he was discharged in accordance with the separation authority's decision.  His DD Form 214 shows in:

* item 3 (SSN) – XXX-X2-1XXX
* item 18a (Net Active Service this Period) – 2 years, 6 months, and 13 days
* item 26 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) – 

* National Defense Service Medal
* Vietnam Service Medal (VSM)
* Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-14)
* Republic of Vietnam (RVN) Campaign Medal with Device (1960)
* Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16)
* Army Commendation Medal

15.  On 29 June 1981, The Adjutant General advised him that the Army Discharge Review Board had determined he was properly discharged.  

16.  His service medical records are not available for review. 

17.  His records are void of documentation showing he was awarded the CIB. 

18.  Review of his records shows that, with the exception of the SSN he entered on his DD Form 398, his SSN was consistently recorded as XXX-X2-1XXX.

19.  He provides, in part:

	a.  a webpage listing signs of PTSD on which he has placed an "X" next to numerous symptoms and associated behaviors; and

	b.  documents related to a claim for compensation submitted to the VA that include supporting statements indicating that – 

* his behavior changed after his military service
* he has had marital problems and has abused alcohol
* he became antisocial, had sleep problems, had problems controlling his anger, and was hypervigilant

20.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  

	a.  Chapter 10 of the version in effect at the time provided that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge, could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after court-martial charges were preferred.  Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service.  Consulting counsel would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses charged, type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of VA benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge.  An Undesirable Discharge Certificate would normally be furnished an individual who was discharged for the good of the Service.

	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.

21.  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." 
22.  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.

23.  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. 

24.  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.  

25.  In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service.

26.  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?

27.  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.

28.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual and unit military awards.  It states:

	a.  There are basically three requirements for award of the CIB.  The Soldier must be an infantryman satisfactorily performing infantry duties, he must be assigned to an infantry unit during such time as the unit is engaged in active ground combat, and he must actively participate in such ground combat.  

	b.  A bronze service star is worn on the VSM for each credited campaign listed in appendix B.  A silver service star is authorized in lieu of five bronze service stars.  His service in Vietnam coincided with five campaigns:  

* Vietnam Counteroffensive Phase III (1 June 1967 to 29 January 1968)
* Tet Counteroffensive (30 January to 1 April 1968)
* Vietnam Counteroffensive Phase IV (2 April to 30 June 1968)
* Vietnam Counteroffensive Phase V (1 July to 1 November 1968)
* Vietnam Counteroffensive Phase VI (2 November 1968 to 22 February 1969)

29.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) lists the awards received by units serving in Vietnam.  This pamphlet shows the 151st Transportation Company was awarded the Meritorious Unit Commendation (MUC) for the period 1 July 1968 to 30 June 1969, as announced in Department of the Army General Order (DAGO) Number 53, dated 1970.

30.  DAGO 8, dated 1974, announced award of the RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation to Headquarters, U.S. Military Assistance Command, and its subordinate units during the period 8 February 1962 to 28 March 1973 and to Headquarters, U.S. Army Vietnam, and its subordinate units during the period 20 July 1965 to 28 March 1973.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's discharge proceedings 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.  In this case, the available records do not show that the applicant suffered from symptoms of PTSD during his military service, nor do the available records show that he received a diagnosis of PTSD from a competent medical authority subsequent to his discharge.  While it is possible that he may have incurred PTSD as a result of his combat tour in Vietnam, it appears that his claim to have this condition is based on self-diagnosis, which is not a sufficient basis for considering PTSD as a mitigating factor.  

5.  His records show a history of going AWOL that began almost immediately after he entered military service.  The records do not show that he had any periods of AWOL while he was serving in Vietnam; however, shortly after he returned to the United States his pattern of going AWOL began again.  While it is possible that symptoms of PTSD may have contributed to his misconduct after his return from Vietnam, the characterization of service he received was warranted based on the entirety of his service record.  

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient basis upon which to upgrade his discharge under conditions other than honorable to a general discharge.

7.  During his service in Vietnam he was assigned to transportation companies in a transportation MOS.  He is not eligible for award of the CIB based on this service.  
8.  The record indicates that he was later assigned to duty in Vietnam with an infantry brigade in an infantry MOS.  The available records indicate that he did not actually go to Vietnam to serve this second tour.  This being the case, he did not perform combat duty as an infantryman and did not become eligible for the CIB.  

9.  He was awarded the VSM and he participated in five campaigns.  Therefore, he is entitled to correction of his DD Form 214 to show one silver service star for wear on his previously-awarded VSM.

10.  He served in the 151st Transportation Company during a period for which the unit was awarded the MUC, and he served in Vietnam during a period for which all units were awarded the RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation.  He is entitled to correction of his DD Form 214 to show these awards.  

11.  The SSN he claims is correct was recorded in his records.  It is unclear how a different SSN came to be the SSN of record; however, it was the result of an administrative error.  It would be appropriate to correct his DD Form 214 to show the SSN he listed in his DD Form 398.  

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 making the following amendments to his DD Form 214:  

	a.  replace the entry in item 3 with the SSN he entered on his DD Form 398;

	b.  delete from item 26 the VSM and

	b.  add to item 26 – 

* VSM with one silver service star
* MUC
* RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation

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 his discharge and award of the CIB.  



      _______ _   __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)                                         AR20140006549





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140006549



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1