IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  19 February 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140016146 


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

2.  The applicant states that he desires an upgrade in the characterization of his service so that he may be compensated for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) under the new guidance.  He served in Vietnam honorably and feels that he deserves to have his discharge changed to honorable so that he may qualify for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits.

3.  The applicant provided his DD Forms 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) dated 27 October 1968 and 11 August 1971.

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's records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years on 7 February 1968.  He was honorably discharged on 27 October 1968 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment, and he reenlisted for a period of 3 years on 28 October 1968.  The highest rank/grade he attained during his military service was specialist five (SP5)/E-5.

3.  His record also shows that he served in Vietnam as a wheeled vehicle mechanic in a support unit from 20 December 1968 through 17 December 1969.
He was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with 1960 Device, two Overseas Service Bars, and the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-14).

4.  His record reveals a disciplinary history which includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) as follows:

	a.  on 3 March 1970, for being absent without leave (AWOL) during the period on or about 2 February 1970 through on or about 26 February 1970.  His punishment consisted of reduction to the rank/grade of specialist four (SP4)/E-4 (suspended for 90 days), a forfeiture of $75.00 pay for 2 months, 45 days of restriction, and 45 days of extra duty; 

	b.  on 25 March 1970, the suspension of punishment of reduction to SP4/E04, imposed on 3 March 1970, was vacated and the unexecuted portion ordered executed; 

	c.  on 7 April 1970, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty, on or about 5 April 1970.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $30.00 pay for 
1 month; 

	d.  on 8 May 1970, for being AWOL during the period on or about 4 May 1970 through on or about 6 May 1970.  His punishment consisted of reduction to the rank/grade of private first class (PFC)/E-3, forfeiture of $25.00 pay for 
1 month, 14 days of restriction, and 14 days of extra duty; and

	e.  on 27 May 1970, for breaking restriction, on or about 16 May 1970, and for being AWOL during the period on or about 18 May 1970 through on or about 
20 May 1970.  His punishment consisted of reduction to the rank/grade of private (PV2)/E-2, a forfeiture of $50.00 pay for 2 months, and 14 days of extra duty.

5.  On 1 October 1970, the applicant departed his unit in an AWOL status and was subsequently dropped from the Army rolls on 30 October 1970.  He was apprehended by civil authorities and was returned to military control at Fort Jackson, SC, on 16 July 1971.

6.  On 21 July 1971, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for two specifications of being AWOL during the periods from on or about 2 July 1970 through 24 August 1970 and from on or about 1 October 1970 through 16 July 1971.`

7.  On 21 July 1971, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial and the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ; of the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge; and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.  Following consultation with legal counsel, he requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, in accordance with chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations).

8.  In his voluntary request for discharge, the applicant indicated that he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charges against him, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or a dishonorable discharge.  He further acknowledged he understood that 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, and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law. 

9.  On 21 July 1971, the applicant's immediate commander remarked that a careful review of the applicant's record in conjunction with his negative attitude toward honorable service indicated that the best interest of the Army would be served with an approval.  The immediate commander recommended approval of the applicant’s discharge with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

10.  On 27 July 1971, the applicant underwent a pre-separation medical examination.  The Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination) rendered at the time shows that no abnormalities were detected in the applicant's health at the time.  Item 23 (Notes) of this form shows the applicant indicated that he was in good health.

11.  On 29 July 1971, the applicant's intermediate commander also recommended approval of the applicant’s discharge with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The intermediate commander further remarked that approval of the applicant’s discharge was in the best interests of the Army.  On 4 August 1971, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service, in accordance with chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200, and directed he receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate and be reduced to private/E-1.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 11 August 1971.  The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged for the good of the service, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions.  This form further shows he completed 2 years, 2 months, and 
19 days of creditable military service and he had 341 days of lost time due to being AWOL.

12.  The applicant's record is void of any medical evidence and he has not provided any medical evidence showing that he was diagnosed with PTSD or any type of medical or mental condition either during or after his period of service. 

13.  The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge.  On 29 June 1981, after careful consideration of his military records and all other available evidence, the ADRB determined he was properly and equitably discharged and denied the applicant’s petition for an upgrade of his discharge.

14.  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.

15.  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.

16.  Army Regulation 635-200,. 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.


17.  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." 

18.  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.

19.  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. 

20.  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 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.  

21.  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.

22.  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?

23.  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 causeal 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 fails to show that he was subjected to the ordeals of war while serving in the RVN.  Additionally, there are no documented incidents of specific traumatic events.

5.  The applicant's record is void of any evidence and he has not provided sufficient medical evidence that shows he was diagnosed with PTSD/PTSD-related symptoms by a competent mental health professional at any time.  Therefore, there is no reason to presume the applicant suffered from PTSD at the time of discharge. 

6.  In view of the foregoing and in the absence of a PTSD diagnosis, it cannot be concluded that 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 insufficient mitigating evidence to warrant upgrading the characterization of the applicant's service to either an honorable or a general discharge under honorable conditions.

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 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)                                         AR20140016146





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140016146



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1