IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  26 March 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140014041 


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:

	a.  Reconsideration of his earlier request to upgrade his under other than honorable conditions discharge.

	b.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), for the period ending 15 June 1988, be corrected as a new issue to show the award of the National Defense Service Medal. 

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  As to the upgrade of his discharge, he cited the 3 September 2014 memorandum by the Secretary of Defense directing "liberal consideration for discharge upgrades of Vietnam-era Veterans who received an other than honorable discharge which may have been post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)-related."  He states, in effect:

* he is a Vietnam-era Veteran who received an under other than honorable conditions discharge (emphasis added)
* until now there has been no opportunity available for service members to address the issue of PTSD-related or associated behavior for a discharge upgrade
* his past exposure, continued service, rehabilitative efforts, and current achievements all warrant favorable consideration
* he is the first son of a Vietnam-era Veteran and was subjected to a severely hostile environment from age 5 which included emotional, verbal, and physical abuse (emphasis added)
* after completing Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) PTSD counseling, he changed his last name to his mother's maiden name
* period sensitive evidence is unavailable because Vietnam-era medical and personnel files make no mention of PTSD, nor was it recognized by medical authority at that time
* PTSD was not officially recognized until 1980 but was not widely accepted or understood by the military community until years later
* those service members who sought mental health treatment routinely met with adverse consequences, risking their security clearances, duty positions, and careers; they were sometimes referred to as the 
"section 8 squad" in unit formations
* young and highly impressionable Vietnam-era Veterans like the applicant were routinely exposed to toxic leaders, peers, and experiences that involved open and deliberate violations of Army values and moral standards
* these violations established the earliest interpretations of how we were to act and conform to being Soldiers; the associated dilemma caused great stress and confusion

	b.  Regarding PTSD, the applicant further states:

* constant threats, unfavorable assignments of duty, and exposure to events outside the control of individual Soldiers caused feelings of helplessness, horror, even fear
* being considered less than equal with a sense of guilt, despair, grief, and dread undermined the very purpose and intent of volunteering for service
* in his first assignment, his first sergeant committed suicide at his orderly room desk, his married platoon sergeant had a three-way relationship with his wife and a female private in his platoon, and his squad leader was arrested for impersonating a police officer (emphasis added)
* he also witnessed peers smoking marijuana without fear of consequences and becoming involved in other violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
* the influences he enumerated all occurred within a 9-month period, involved orders and threats from superiors, and similar events were repeated in future assignments
* public opinion of Vietnam-era Veterans was less than favorable; they were considered "baby-killers" which was a label he found difficult to carry
* he was spat upon, called a pig, and battered by a group of dissenters while visiting Washington, D.C.; he was later assaulted in Washington State by Nisqually Indians for being a Soldier in uniform
* many Vietnam-era Soldiers continued fighting after the war's end and served many years after, negatively affecting those Soldiers under them
* the learned behavior later manifested in destructive patterns directly related to the PTSD suffered by the applicant (emphasis added)

	c.  The applicant continues:

* during service as a representative (U.S. Department of State contractor) of the United States with the Department of Defense (DoD), he served in Bosnia and participated in both combat operations and peace-keeping missions during which he was exposed to mass murder, rape camps, genocide, human mutilations, improvised explosive devices, sniper attacks, ambushes, hotel bombings, suicide attacks, and enemy engagements
* the risks taken and the devotion to duty demonstrated by the applicant should be considered when the Board evaluates his requests
* in 2012, a bill was introduced directing DoD to establish a program to provide benefits to contractor employees who risked their lives in war zones
* mental health services were limited in the 1970's and 1980's and Soldiers were uncertain as to how they would be treated when they sought assistance; this was one main obstacle which prevented the applicant from obtaining assistance while on active duty
* legislation was introduced in 2014 requiring annual mental health check-ups for Soldiers in an effort to break the stigma of seeking help for mental health issues; this was not available in the 1970's and 1980's
* the exposure to, and expected conformity by toxic Vietnam-era leaders coupled with the lack of treatment availability, very likely caused his misbehavior (emphasis added)
* in reaction to this, some Soldiers turned to alcohol, drugs, or violence; the applicant sought refuge in relationships that provided the care he never received from his Vietnam-era father or military supervisors
* he suffered periods of depression, anxiety, flashback, and recurring nightmares both in childhood and early adulthood (emphasis added)
* he now recognizes the strain of his PTSD symptoms triggered his desire to seek "protective relationships"
* the gradual escalation of problematic behavior is recorded in his military records; the lack of adequate intervention by supervisors and mental health providers contributed to the destruction of his career, the loss of his spouse and children, future career opportunities, and the respect and honor that otherwise would have been his for his service
* when discharged, he was not provided an end-of-service medical examination, contrary to standard practice; had it been done it would have exposed the manifested symptoms of PTSD and led to needed treatment
* he was not advised of any benefits at the time of his discharge; he was left without resources with which to seek help
* despite this, he remained patriotic and hopeful
* however, regardless of how much he has accomplished and how much he has tried, the stigma of having an under other than honorable discharge remains
* now forgiveness can be sought and granted; his honor can be restored
* in 2009 to 2010 he received treatment for PTSD from the VA; the VA also recently acknowledged that Traumatic Servicemembers Group Life Insurance (TSGLI) was not just for war-wounds and covered injuries for any Soldier who has Servicemembers Group Life Insurance
* today he is enrolled in the VA Chapter 31 (Vocational) Rehabilitation Program and is pursuing a master's degree where he has achieved a 3.85 grade point average
* he has been inducted into the Alpha Sigma Pi National Society of Leadership and Success; he seeks to become a crisis manager in government service but fears he may continue to be labeled by the fact he has an under than honorable conditions discharge

	d.  Regarding the award of the National Defense Service Medal, he entered active duty on 14 January 1975 which, he contends, is within the authorized timeframe for the award.

3.  The applicant provides a court order approving the applicant's name change and a letter from the Army Review Boards Agency, dated 15 January 2015, responding to the applicant's letter addressed to the Secretary of Defense.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AC89-09853 on 31 October 1990.

2.  The applicant submitted an initial application, which was denied.

	a.  The applicant argues, in effect, the 3 September 2014 memorandum by the Secretary of Defense gives him grounds to give his previous request new consideration.

	b.  In view of the circumstances of this case, and as an exception to the policy, this application for reconsideration warrants consideration by the Board.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 January 1975 at age 19.  Following initial training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 95B (Military Police).  He served in a variety of positions and his records show assignments in both Korea and Germany.

4.  On 6 May 1988, the applicant's commander preferred court-martial charges for two specifications of Article 134 of the UCMJ:

* during the month of July 1987 he wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a female junior enlisted Soldier, a woman not his wife
* in April 1988 he committed an indecent assault by kissing and fondling a female junior enlisted Soldier, a woman not his wife

5.  On 1 June 1988, the applicant consulted with counsel and, subsequent to receiving legal counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

6.  In his request for discharge, he indicated he:

* was making the request of his own free will and had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person 
* by submitting his request, he acknowledged he was guilty of the charges against him
* understood if the 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 VA
* understood he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws
* elected to submit a statement in his own behalf (not available in the record for review)

7.   On 13 June 1988, the separation authority approved his request for discharge in lieu of court-martial with the issuance of an Under other than Honorable Discharge.  He was also reduced to the lowest enlisted rank.  On 15 June 1988, he was discharged accordingly.

8.  His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under other than honorable conditions in accordance with the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 
635-200.  This form shows he completed 13 years, 5 months, and 2 days of active creditable service.  He was awarded or authorized:

* Army Commendation Medal (4th Award)
* Army Achievement Medal (3rd Award)
* Army Good Conduct Medal (4th Award)
* Noncommissioned Officers Professional Development Ribbon with Numeral 3 
* Army Service Ribbon
* Overseas Service Ribbon with Numeral 2
* Parachutist Badge
* Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16
* Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Pistol Bar
(.45 Caliber)
* French Forces Commando Badge

9.  On 28 September 1989, the Army Discharge Review Board notified the applicant, having determined his discharge to be proper and equitable, his request for a change in the character and/or reason for discharge was denied.

10.  On 13 December 1990, the ABCMR notified the applicant his request for upgrade of his discharge was denied.

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the National Defense Service Medal is awarded for honorable active service for any period between 27 July 1950 and 27 July 1954, 1 January 1961 and 14 August 1974, 2 August 1990 and 30 November 1995, and 11 September 2001 and a date to be determined.

12.  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 at any time after the charges have been preferred.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

   b.  Paragraph 3-7a provides an honorable discharge is given when the quality of the Soldier’s service has generally met standards of acceptable conduct and duty performance.
   
   c.  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.

13.  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 a 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."

14.  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.

15.  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

16.  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.

17.  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.

18.  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?	A
* 
* Was the applicant's misconduct premeditated?
* How serious was the misconduct?

19.  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 causeal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Regarding the applicant's request for the award of the National Defense Service Medal, the regulation stipulates the timeframe to be from 1 January 
1961 and 14 August 1974.  Additionally, it is only awarded for recipients with honorable service.  The applicant did not enter the Regular Army until 14 January 1975 and was discharged under other than honorable conditions.  He is therefore not eligible for this award.

2.  As to his request for the upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge, the applicant states he believes he is suffering from PTSD, which contributed to the misconduct leading to his discharge.  There is, however, insufficient evidence to support a request for an upgrade at this time.

3.  The applicant was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  The applicant voluntarily, willingly, and in writing, requested discharge from the Army 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.

4.  The applicant contends:

* although he never served in Vietnam, he is a Vietnam-era Veteran
* his father, a Vietnam-era Veteran, abused him emotionally, verbally, and physically
* when he first entered the Army, he was exposed to traumatic incidents perpetrated by Vietnam Veterans who were either his leaders or peers
* PTSD was not recognized and behavioral health treatment was both unavailable and stigmatized
* the exposure to, and expected conformity by toxic Vietnam-era leaders coupled with the lack of treatment availability very likely caused his misbehavior

5.  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.  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.  In this case, the applicant's records confirm there were no recorded instances of misconduct until charges were preferred on 6 May 1988.

6.  There are two factors, however, that merit close consideration:

	a.  The first is the available record does not show nor has the applicant provided evidence of a diagnosis made by a behavioral health provider credentialed to be able to affirm such a diagnosis.  A valid diagnosis would be required for the Board to be able to grant the applicant's request for upgrade.
	b.  Secondly, the misconduct which resulted in his discharge in lieu of court-martial was sexual in nature, perpetrated by the applicant on lower enlisted Soldiers.  Two criteria that are considered by the Board when determining if an applicant is eligible for a discharge upgrade are whether the applicant's misconduct premeditated and how serious was the misconduct.  The applicant's misconduct arguably implies premeditation and, particularly because lower enlisted Soldiers are involved, is quite serious.  Based upon the foregoing, the applicant's request should not be granted.

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 that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AC89-09853 on 31 October 1990.


      
      
________________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)                                         AR20140014041





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140014041



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1