IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  27 January 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140008261 


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 general discharge under honorable 
conditions to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states:

*	his discharge was unjust due to his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 
incurred in Vietnam
*	he attained the rank of specialist four and was awarded the Bronze Star 
Medal (3rd Award) during his tour in Vietnam

3.  The applicant provides:

*	DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or 
Discharge)
*	Headquarters, 25th Infantry Division, General Orders Number 10738, 
dated 1 November 1970
*	two letters from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), dated 
22 February 2010 and 6 December 2012

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 28 July 1969.

3.  He served in Vietnam during the period 3 January 1970 to 24 November 
1970.  While serving in Vietnam, he was assigned to Troop C, 3d Squadron, 
4th Cavalry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division.

4.  Headquarters, 25th Infantry Division, General Orders Number 10738, dated 
1 November 1970, awarded him the Bronze Star Medal (3rd Award) for 
meritorious service in the Republic of Vietnam during the period January 1970 to 
November 1970.

5.  Following his service in Vietnam, he was reassigned to the 502d Adjutant 
General Administration Company, Fort Hood, TX.  He was later assigned to 
Company C, 1st Battalion, 66th Armor Regiment, 2d Armored Division, 
Fort Hood, TX.

6.  Following his service in Texas, he was assigned to Troop D, 1st Squadron, 
14th Armored Cavalry Regiment, U.S. Army Europe, Germany.

7.  The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of 
Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, on the following occasions:

*	on 21 July 1971, for being absent without leave (AWOL) on or about 
28 June 1971 until on or about 20 July 1971
*	on 13 August 1971, for being absent from his place of duty from on or 
about 1330 hours on 10 August 1971 until on or about 1630 hours on 
10 August 1971 
*	on 19 August 1971, for disobeying an order
*	on 13 October 1971, for –

*	resisting arrest on or about 29 September 1971
*	wrongfully appropriating a government truck on or about 29 September 
1971
*	being drunk and disorderly on or about 29 September 1971

8.  Headquarters, 1st Squadron, 14th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Summary 
Court-Martial Order Number 20, dated 7 October 1971, shows the applicant pled 
not guilty but was found guilty of sleeping on post on or about 27 August 1971.

9.  On 20 October 1971, the applicant was counseled on initiation of a bar to 
reenlistment against him due to his court-martial conviction and NJP.  The 
applicant elected not to submit statements in his own behalf.  On the same date, 
his commander advised him of initiation of discharge action for unsuitability under 
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations – 
Discharge – Unfitness and Unsuitability).

10.  On 21 October 1971, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation 
and was found to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in 
proceedings, to be mentally responsible, and to meet retention standards.  He 
had no significant psychosis or neurosis and he was cleared for any 
administrative action deemed appropriate by his command.

11.  On 27 October 1971, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation 
memorandum.  He consulted with legal counsel and he was advised of the basis 
for the contemplated separation for unfitness, the type of discharge and its effect 
on further enlistment or reenlistment, the possible effects of an undesirable 
discharge, and the procedures and rights available to him.  He waived 
consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived a personal appearance 
before a board of officers, and declined making a statement in his own behalf.  
He acknowledged he understood he might expect to encounter substantial 
prejudice in civilian life in the event a general discharge were issued to him, and, 
he might be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal 
and State laws as a result of the issuance of a discharge under other than 
honorable conditions.

12.  Subsequent to this acknowledgement, his immediate commander initiated 
separation action against him by reason of unsuitability on 11 November 1971 
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 and recommended a discharge 
under honorable conditions (general).  The immediate commander cited the 
applicant's poor attitude and record of disciplinary actions.  He also requested a 
waiver of the rehabilitative transfer requirement.

13.  On 11 November 1971, his bar to reenlistment was approved.

14.  On 12 November 1971, the applicant's intermediate commander 
recommended approval of the discharge with the issuance of a general 
discharge and a waiver of the rehabilitative transfer requirement.

15.  On 19 November 1971 consistent with the chain of command's 
recommendations, the separation authority approved a waiver of the 
rehabilitative transfer requirement and the applicant's discharge under the 
provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unsuitability.  He directed 
the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

16.  On 1 December 1971, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  His 
DD Form 214 shows he completed 2 years, 4 months, and 4 days of creditable 
active service.

17.  He provided copies of two letters from the VA, dated 22 February 2010 and 
6 December 2012, that show he received an increase in his VA compensation for 
an unidentified service-related disability.

18.  There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for a 
review of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

19.  His medical records are not available for review with this case.  The 
available records are void of and he failed to provide evidence showing he was 
diagnosed with PTSD as a result of his service in Vietnam.

20.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the policy and 
procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness and 
unsuitability.  Paragraph 6b stated an individual was subject to separation for 
unsuitability when one or more of the following conditions existed:  (1) inaptitude; 
(2) character and behavior disorders; (3) apathy (lack of appropriate interest, 
defective attitudes, and inability to expend effort constructively); (4) alcoholism; 
(5) enuresis; and (6) homosexuality (Class III – evidenced homosexual tendencies, 
desires, or interest, but was without overt homosexual acts).  When separation for 
unsuitability was warranted, an honorable or general discharge was issued as 
determined by the separation authority based on the individual's entire record.

21.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), 
currently in effect, sets forth the basic policy for the separation of enlisted 
personnel.  Paragraph 3-7a states an honorable discharge is a separation with 
honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable 
characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service 
generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty 
for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization 
would be clearly inappropriate.

22.  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." 

23.  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.

24.  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. 

25.  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 (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.  

26.  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.

27.  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?

28.  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 causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for an upgrade of his general discharge under 
honorable conditions was carefully considered.

2.  His records are void of and he provided no evidence showing he was 
diagnosed with PTSD then or now.

3.  The applicant's administrative discharge was accomplished in accordance 
with applicable regulations with no violation of his rights.  Although he could have 
been recommended for a UOTHC discharge for misconduct, his commander 
elected to recommend discharge of general under honorable conditions.  The 
fact that he was discharged for this more favorable reason indicates his 
commander took into consideration the entirety of his military service and the 
severity of his misconduct, to include any mental health issues he may have had 
at the time of discharge.  Accordingly, his discharge and the reasons therefore 
were appropriate under the circumstances.

4.  An honorable character of service is appropriate when the quality of the 
Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and 
performance of duty for Army personnel and an under honorable conditions 
character of service is appropriate for those Soldiers whose military record is 
satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  
The applicant's military service was marred with misconduct.  Therefore, he is not 
entitled to an honorable discharge.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant an 
upgrade of his discharge.

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 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)                                         AR20140008261


3

ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140008261


5

ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

1