IN THE CASE OF:  	  

		BOARD DATE:  17 March 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140010955 


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 correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the period ending 
18 February 1970 to upgrade his character of service for the period represented by this DD Form 214 and add his foreign service in the Republic of Vietnam.

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  He enlisted when he was 16 years old and very immature.  He served in Vietnam from July 1967 to July 1968; when he returned to the United States after his tour in Vietnam he had a lot of trouble readjusting and he went absent without leave (AWOL) several times.  He was court-martialed and sent to Fort Riley, KS for retraining for about 5 or 6 months.

	b.  He put his life on the line for this country and it gave him a hard time readjusting to life.  He still has nightmares and flashbacks from Vietnam.  He is attempting to get his life in order and to do that he feels he should start by trying to explain why he could not readjust to life at home after returning from Vietnam and get some treatment.  He is requesting in upgrade of his character of service and hopes the Board will understand that he knows going AWOL was not the solution.  However, at the time he went AWOL he did not know the solution to his mental anxiety.  People called him a baby killer and treated him like he had done something wrong by serving in Vietnam, so he ran and kept running to get as far from the Army as he could.

	c.  He knows he was wrong, but at the time he took those actions he was not mature enough to deal with the backlash from the things he experienced in Vietnam.  He thought going AWOL was the only way to help him forget about Vietnam and readjust.  Unfortunately, his going AWOL did not help.

3.  The applicant provides an extract of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) and copies of his DD Forms 214 for the periods ending 27 April 1967 and 18 February 1970.

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 was born on 1 April 1949.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 July 1966 with parental consent at 17 years of age.  He held military occupational specialty 64B (Heavy Vehicle Driver) and he reenlisted on 28 April 1967.  The highest rank/grade he attained while serving on active duty was specialist four/E-4.

3.  His DA Form 20 shows:

	a.  He was assigned to Germany from 13 January 1967 to 1 July 1967, where he served with the 68th Transportation Company from 16 January 1967 to 
2 June 1967.

	b.  He was assigned to the Republic of Vietnam from 16 July 1967 to 3 July 1968, where he served with Company D, 87th Engineer Battalion from 18 July 1967 to 27 November 1967 and with Company B, 87th Engineer Battalion from 28 November 1967 to 3 July 1968.

	c.  He was awarded or authorized the:

* National Defense Service Medal
* Vietnam Service Medal
* Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960)
* Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-14)
	
d.  His DA Form 20 listed the following periods as lost time due to being AWOL, confined (CNF), or dropped from the rolls (DFR):

* 3 September 1968 to 11 September 1968, AWOL, 9 days
* 25 December 1968 to 9 February 1969, AWOL, 47 days
* 13 February 1969 to 13 May 1969, CNF, 90 days
* 14 May 1969 to 9 July 1969, CNF, 57 days
* 11 July 1969 to 9 August 1969, AWOL, 30 days
* 10 August 1969 to 29 September 1969, DFR, 51 days
* 30 September 1969 to 30 September 1969, CNF, 1 day
* 17 November 1969 to 18 November 1969, AWOL, 2 days
* 8 December 1969 to 20 January 1970, AWOL, 44 days
* 22 January 1970 to (unknown date), CNF

4.  On 26 September 1967, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for backing a vehicle without checking for clearance and procuring guidance resulting in an accident and causing damage to government property.

5.  Summary Court-Martial Order Number 9, issued by Headquarters, Special Troops, U.S. Army Training Center, Armor, Fort Knox, Kentucky on                   26 September 1968, shows he was convicted of being AWOL from on or about 
3 September 1968 to on or about 12 September 1968.

6.  Special Court-Martial Order Number 267, issued by Headquarters, Special Troops, Fort Campbell, Kentucky on 21 April 1969, shows he was convicted of being AWOL from on or about 25 December 1968 to on or about 10 February 1969.

7.  On 4 November 1969, he consulted with legal counsel and he was advised of the basis for a contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of an other than honorable discharge, and the procedures and rights that were available to him.  Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He acknowledged he had not been subjected to coercion with respect to his request for discharge.  He further indicated he personally made the choices indicated in his request for discharge.
8.  He acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request was approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA), and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.

9.  His record contains a Standard Form (SF) 88 (Report of Medical Examination), which documents a separation physical he underwent on             20 November 1969.  On this form the examining medical official stated, "There is no reasonable grounds for belief that this individual is or ever has been mentally defective, deranged, or abnormal.  A psychiatric examination is not deemed to be appropriate."  The examining official also indicated the applicant was medically qualified for separation.

10.  His record contains a Charge Sheet, dated 3 February 1970, which shows he was charged with being AWOL from:

* on or about 11 July 1969 to on or about 30 September 1969
* on or about 17 November 1969 to on or about 19 November 1969
* on or about 8 December 1969 to on or about 19 January 1970

11.  On 11 February 1970, the separation authority approved his request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court-martial, with an undesirable discharge and reduction to private/E-1.  

12.  On 18 February 1970, he was discharged accordingly.  His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service.  His DD Form 214 further shows:

* he completed 1 year, 10 months, and 24 days of creditable active military service, of which 1 year and 22 days was credited as foreign service
* item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) does not list any awards
* item 30 (Remarks) does not list his foreign service in Vietnam; however, it does show he accumulated 334 days of lost time

13.  His record is void of any documentation that shows or implies he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or PTSD-related symptoms during his period of military service.


14.  There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, 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 under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

16.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

17.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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.

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 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 causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct.

25.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, prescribed the separation documents that must be prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active duty service or control of the Active Army.  It established standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  The instructions specified:

	a.  For item 24 enter all decorations, service medals, campaign credits, and badges awarded or authorized from section 41 (Decorations and Awards) of the individual's DA Form 20, omitting authorities cited therein; and

	b.  For item 30, indicate Indochina and Korea service performed on or after 5 August 1964 by entering the inclusive dates of service for Vietnam and indicating "Yes" or "No" for the service in Indochina and Korea.  Where the records reflect assignment to an organization in Burma, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, or Vietnam, show "Yes" for Indochina.  Sample entries are as follows:

* to show service in Vietnam only – "Vietnam – 21 May 1969 to 10 June 1971, Indochina – Yes, Korea – No"
* to show service in Indochina (other than Vietnam) only – "Indochina – Yes, Vietnam – No, Korea – No"
* to show service in Korea only – "Indochina – No, Vietnam – No, Korea – Yes"
26.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the Vietnam Service Medal is awarded to all members of the Armed Forces of the United States for qualifying service in Vietnam after 3 July 1965 through 28 March 1973.  A bronze service star will be awarded for wear on the Vietnam Service Medal for participation in each credited campaign.  Appendix B shows that during his service in Vietnam, he participated in the following four campaigns:

* Vietnam Counteroffensive, Phase III (1 June 1967 - 29 January 1968)
* Tet Counteroffensive (30 January 1968 - 1 April 1968)
* Vietnam Counteroffensive, Phase IV (2 April 1968 - 30 June 1968)
* Vietnam Counteroffensive, Phase V (1 July 1968 - 1 November 1968)

27.  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:

	a.  The 87th Engineer Battalion was cited for award of the Meritorious Unit Commendation for the period 1 March 1967 to 29 February 1968 by Department of the Army General Orders (DAGO) Number 48, dated 1969.

	b.  Headquarters, U.S. Army Vietnam and its subordinate units was cited for award of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation for the period 20 July 1965 to 28 March 1973, by DAGO Number 8, dated 1974.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The evidence shows that having been advised by legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.

2.  His record does not contain and he has not provided any evidence to show the charges against him were untrue or that he was coerced into voluntarily requesting discharge.

3.  His record contains an extensive history of AWOL.  Based on his record of indiscipline, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct rendered his service unsatisfactory.

4.  His statements concerning the reasons for his AWOL/discharge are insufficient evidence in and of themselves.  He has not provided any current or past documents from medical or mental health experts that suggest his repeated AWOLs and subsequent discharge were likely caused by or linked to a diagnosis of a mental condition such as anxiety, depression, or PTSD.  As such, there is no way to establish a causal link to showing his mental state at the time influenced his actions.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting him a general or an honorable characterization of service.

5.  His record shows he served in the Republic of Vietnam from 16 July 1967 to 


3 July 1968.  This period of foreign service is not reflected on his DD Form 214; therefore, he is entitled to correction of his DD Form 214 to show it.

6.  His DA Form 20 shows he was awarded or authorized the National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960), and the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-14).  These awards were not listed on his DD Form 214; therefore he is entitled to correction of his DD Form 214 to add these awards.

7.  He participated in four campaigns while serving in Vietnam.  Therefore, he is authorized four bronze service stars with his Vietnam Service Medal and correction of his DD Form 214 to show this award.

8.  Department of the Army general orders awarded his unit the Meritorious Unit Commendation and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation during the period he was assigned.  Therefore, he is entitled to correction of his DD Form 214 to show these unit awards.

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 amending his DD Form 214, for the period ending 18 February 1970, by:

	a.  adding to item 24 the following awards:

* National Defense Service Medal 
* Vietnam Service Medal with four bronze service stars
* Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960)
* Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-14)
* Meritorious Unit Commendation
* Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation
	b.  adding to item 30 the entry "Vietnam – 16 July 1967 to 3 July 1968, Indochina – Yes, Korea – No." 

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 character of service.



      ____________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)                                         AR20140010955





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140010955



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1