IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE: 5 February 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140008383 


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 to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states his discharge should be upgraded because he had undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from his tour in Vietnam.

3.  The applicant provides copies of:

* a page from his discharge packet
* his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge)
* a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), dated 16 March 2011
* his discharge orders

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 19 November 1970.  He held military occupational specialties 72B (Communications Center Specialist) and 71B (Clerk Typist).

3.  His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows in:

	a.  item 31 (Overseas Service) he served in Vietnam from 1 July 1971 through 6 April 1972;

	b.  item 38 (Record of Assignments) that while in Vietnam he served as a teletype operator in the 101st Adjutant General (AG) Company and as a communications center specialist in Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2nd Battalion, 327th Infantry;

	c.  item 41 (Awards and Decorations) he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960), and one Overseas Service Bar; and

	d.  item 44 (Time Lost) –

* absent without leave (AWOL) from 30 May-4 June 1972, 6 days
* AWOL 29 November-13 December 1972, 15 days
* confinement 10 January-14 March 1973, 64 days

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

* 26 January 1971, for being derelict on the performance of his duties
* 6 June 1972, for being AWOL from 30 May to 5 June 1972
* 13 November 1972, for willfully disobeying a lawful order
* 22 May 1973, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty

5.  On 26 January 1973, he was found guilty by a special court-martial of being AWOL, failing to go at the time prescribed to his place of duty, willfully disobeying a lawful order, and of being disrespectful to a commissioned officer.

6.  On 28 June 1973, 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 requested consideration of his case by a board of officers, and a personal appearance before a board of officers, and indicated he would not make 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.

7.  On 2 July 1973, his commander recommended the applicant be required to appear before a board of officers to determine whether he should be discharged under the provisions of  Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military personnel.  The applicant's conduct and efficiency ratings were excellent and good while in Vietnam, but he had received unsatisfactory ratings since his return.  The commander indicated the applicant had been convicted by a special court-martial and he had received NJP on five occasions.  

8.  On 3 July 1972, 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.

9.  The battalion and brigade commanders each recommended approval of the applicant's separation.

10.  A board of officers adjourned on 6 August 1972.  The board found the applicant was not qualified for retention in the military service because of unfitness, frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  The board recommended the applicant be eliminated from the Army and issued a General Discharge Certificate.

11.  On 16 August 1973, the separation authority waived the rehabilitative requirements and approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200 for unfitness.  He directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

12.  On 20 August 1973, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  His DD Form 214 shows he had completed 2 years, 6 months, and 7 days of creditable active service.

13.  He provided copies of a:

	a.  page from his discharge packet showing his conduct and efficiency ratings while he was in Vietnam and after he returned; and

	b.  16 March 2011 VA letter showing he received service connected ratings of 50% for sleep apnea; 50% for PTSD; 20% for peripheral neuropathy, left lower extremity; 20% for peripheral neuropathy, right lower extremity; 10% for diabetes mellitus, type II; 10% for peripheral neuropathy, left upper; and 10% for peripheral neuropathy, right upper extremity.

14.  There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

15.  His medical records are not available for review.  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.

16.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the policy and prescribes the procedures for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13, in effect at that time, applied to separation for unfitness and unsuitability.  Paragraph 13-5a provided for separation for unfitness, which included frequent incidents of a discreditable nature, sexual perversion, drug abuse, an established pattern of shirking, failure to pay just debts, failure to support dependents, and homosexual acts.  When separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate. 

17.  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.

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 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.  

22.  In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards 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 causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

2.  His service medical records are not available for review.  The available records, including the 16 March 2011 letter from the VA, are void of and he failed to provide evidence showing he was diagnosed with PTSD as a result of his service in Vietnam.

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 an undesirable discharge for unfitness, the board of officers elected to recommend he receive a general discharge.  The fact that he was discharged for this more favorable reason indicates his entire military service was taken into consideration.  There is no evidence he suffered from any mental health issues 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 frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  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)                                         AR20140008383



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1