IN THE CASE OF:  	  

		BOARD DATE:  7 April 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140010472 


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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was wrong and he is remorseful.  His misconduct was due to losing a wife and child.  He had three tours in Vietnam in heavy combat and he was not in his right mind when he had a one-time lapse in judgment.  He has been suffering from shame and remorse as if it was yesterday.  His life has been ruined and he believes his discharge was an injustice.

3.  The applicant provides a letter detailing the events surrounding his discharge and copies of his post-service medical documents which show he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after leaving the military.

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.  A review of his military records shows that prior to reenlisting on 21 August 1970, the applicant completed the following periods of honorable service:

* 1 December 1964 to 16 November 1966
* 17 November 1966 to 20 August 1970

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

	a.  Item 22 (Military Occupational Specialities)-

* 11F (Infantry Operations and Intelligence Specialist)
* 16C (Hercules Missile Fire Control Crewman) 
* 71N (Troop Movement Specialist) 

	b.  Item 21 (Foreign Service) -

* Vietnam, 20 August 1965 to 21 September 1966 (13 months)
* Vietnam, 14 July 1967 to 12 April 1970 (41 months)

	c.  item 33 (Appointments and Reductions), that he advanced through the enlisted ranks from private/E-1 to staff sergeant/E-6 in 47 months.

	d.  item 38 (Record of Assignments), that he served with the 327th Infantry, 101st Airborne Division, in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN).  His conduct and efficiency were rated as "excellent" from 7 December 1964 through
8 April 1971. 

4.  On 24 May 1974, he consulted with counsel who advised him of the basis for his contemplated trial by court-martial and the maximum possible punishment authorized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), of the possible effects of an undesirable discharge, and of the rights available to him.

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

	a.  He acknowledged that:

* he understood he could request discharge for the good of the service because charges had been preferred against him under the UCMJ that authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge
* he was guilty of the charge against him or of a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge
* he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate
* as a result of such a discharge, he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits and be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration
* he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under Federal and State law
* he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an undesirable discharge

	b.  In a statement in his own behalf, he stated:

* the service was not the life for him
* he had no potential for rehabilitation

6.  On 28 May 1974, court-martial charges were preferred against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from on or about 17 April to 11 May 1972 (24 days) and again from on or about 11 May 1972 to on or about 15 May 1974 (735 days).

7.  On 17 June 1974, the separation authority approved the applicant's request and directed that he receive an undesirable discharge with reduction to the lowest enlisted grade.  On 19 July 1974, he was discharged in accordance with the separation authority's decision with his service characterized as under conditions other than honorable.  He completed 7 years, 6 months, and 9 days of total active service with 759 days of lost time.

8.  His DD Form 214 issued at the time of his discharge shows he was awarded the Silver Star (no hard copy of this award is available in his record).

9.  On 19 April 1982, he was notified that after careful review of his application, military records and all other available evidence, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determined that he was properly and equitably discharged.  Accordingly, his request for a change in the character of and/or reason for his discharge was denied.



10.  He provides:

	a.  A letter, dated 8 June 2014, wherein the applicant states that after completing three tours of combat in the RVN he had a one-time lapse in judgment because he was not in his right mind.  He states, in part, that he:

* completed three tours in the RVN
* completed two prior periods of honorable service 
* suffered from combat fatigue and was repeatedly denied medical and mental health assistance
* went AWOL in order to support his wife with a pregnancy after she had four earlier miscarriages
* later surrendered to Army authorities at Fort Gordon, GA
* was later divorced
* was informed that he would be given an undesirable discharge and reduced to private/E-1
* was denied legal representation and the opportunity to have a physical examination

	b.  Medical Progress Notes issued by the VA Medical Center, Tampa, FL, for the period 7 August through 1 December 2014.  These medical records show that the applicant was diagnosed with chronic PTSD, combat related (Vietnam), chronic alcoholism in remission, and a mood disorder. 

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

   a.  Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.  At the time, an undesirable discharge was normally given.
   
   b.  Paragraph 3-7b states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

   c.    Paragraph 3-7a provides that 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.

12.  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." 

13.  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.

14.  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. 

15.  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.  

16.  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.

17.  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?

18.  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.

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.  Of particular note is the fact that he served for approximately three combat tours (54 months) in the RVN while serving as an infantryman and he was awarded the Silver Star.

5.  Subsequent to these experiences, medical evidence shows the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD/PTSD-related symptoms by a competent mental health professional.  Therefore, it is reasonable to believe the applicant's PTSD condition existed at the time of discharge. 

6.  The applicant's record is void of any serious previous misconduct during this period of service and the misconduct of going AWOL appears to have been an isolated event that was the result of an uncharacteristic lapse in judgment.

7.  It is concluded that the 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 sufficient mitigating evidence to warrant upgrading the characterization of the applicant's service to a general discharge under honorable conditions.

8.  However, Based on his record of misconduct, the applicant's service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Accordingly, there is insufficient basis upon which to grant the applicant's request for a fully honorable discharge.

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 re-issuing the applicant's DD Form 214 for the period ending 19 July 1974 to show the characterization of service as "General, Under Honorable Conditions."

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to upgrading the characterization of his discharge to fully honorable.



      ____________X___________
                  CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.



ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140010472





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140010472



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1