IN THE CASE OF:	   

		BOARD DATE:	  16 June 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140016996 


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 reconsideration of his previous request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD) based on recognition of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) by the Secretary of Defense.

2.  As a new issue he requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the period ending
24 October 1975 to show in: 

* Item 26 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) two awards of Purple Heart and Bronze Star Medal
* Item 29 (Signature of Person Being Separated) his signature
* Item 31 (Signature of Officer Authorized to Sign) the appropriate signature

3.  The applicant states he still has received no help with readjustment, PTSD, or Agent Orange.  He was just a crazy Vietnam veteran who still needs help.  He came back from Vietnam with PTSD.  He was advised that his discharge would be mailed to the address given as his permanent mailing address the day following the discharge date.  The DD Form 214 he received contains no signatures in items 29 and 31.  He never received the requested medals, which were also to be mailed to him. 




4.  The applicant provides copies of the following:

* DD Form 214 for the period ending 12 May 1968
* Honorable Discharge Certificate
* Standard Form (SF) 600 (Health Record – Chronological Record of Medical Care)
* SF 513 (Clinical Record – Consultation Sheet)
* DA Form 3349 (Medical Condition – Physical Profile Record)
* two memoranda, subject: Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service
* DD Form 214 for the period ending 24 October 1979
* Undesirable Discharge Certificate
* Notification of Discharge letter
* Veterans Administration (VA) Form 21-4138 (Statement in Support of Claim)
* letter written to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB)
* previous Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Record of Proceedings (pages 2 and 3)
* letter from the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Personnel Center
* document pertaining to the Agent Orange Veteran Payment Program
* a letter written to the Social Security Administration (SSA) (pages 5 and 6)
* two VA Progress Notes
* letter to the VA
* newspaper article about him
* seven pictures – three allegedly of himself, one of a hut fire, and three of corpses
* information on Katum, Vietnam

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 ABCMR in Docket Number AR2001051230 on 19 April 2001.

2.  On 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Board for Correction of Military/Naval Records to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria when taking actions on applications from former service members administratively discharged 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.  Therefore, the applicant's request will be considered by the Board.
3.  He enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 12 September 1967 for 3 years.  He was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 13A (field artillery).  He served in Germany from 30 January through 24 May 1968.  He was promoted to pay grade E-4 on 12 May 1968.  

4.  He was honorably discharged on 12 May 1968 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  He was issued a DD Form 214 crediting him with completing 8 months and 1 day of active service and 3 months and 13 days of foreign service.  

5.  He reenlisted in the RA on 13 May 1968 and he held MOS 13B (field artillery crewman).  He served in Vietnam from 31 July 1968 through 29 July 1969.

6.  He provided a copy of an SF 600 which shows he received treatment on/for:

* 30 August 1968 – an injury to the 5th finger of his left hand
* 21 September 1968 – anxiety (hospitalized)
* 8 October 1968 – folliculitis

7.  On 2 February 1970, he was convicted by a special court-martial of one specification of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 5 November through 31 December 1969.  He was sentenced to 2 months in confinement at hard labor and a forfeiture of $40.00 pay for 4 months.

8.  On 11 February 1970, the convening authority approved the sentence and ordered it executed.

9.  He also provided copies of the following:

* SF 513, dated 25 May 1970, which shows he received medical treatment for swelling in his right foot which occurred while serving in Vietnam; a profile was requested and he was returned to duty
* DA Form 3349, dated 25 May 1970, which shows he was assigned a physical profile of 1 1 1 P-2 1 1, for an old injury to the first metatarsal; he was found to be medically qualified for duty with limitations

10.  His records contain a VA Form 10-1000 (Hospital Summary) which shows he was admitted to the hospital from 26 December 1973 through 3 January 1974, because of aggressive feelings and fighting.  He had difficulties with fighting dating back to his military service and more recently he had become afraid of losing control and hurting his children.  He was released and further psychiatric evaluation if indicated was recommended.

11.  On 18 August 1975, a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) was completed by the Commander, U.S. Army Personnel Control Facility, Fort Hood, TX.  The applicant was charged with one specification each of being AWOL from 25 February through 23 October 1970, 26 October through 11 November 1970, and 2 December 1970 through 12 August 1975.

12.  His record is void of the complete facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge; however, his records contain the following:

   a.  A memorandum, subject: Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service, dated 19 August 1975, wherein the applicant's company commander stated he had personally interviewed the applicant and felt that rehabilitation would not be in the best interest of the applicant or the U.S. Army.  He recommended approval of the applicant's request and the issuance of a UD.

   b.  A memorandum, subject: Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service, dated 10 October 1975, wherein the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge and directed the issuance of a UD.

   c.  A DD Form 214 which shows he was discharged in pay grade E-1 on 24 October 1975 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations, Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10.  His service was characterized as under conditions other than honorable and he was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He was credited with completing 1 year, 10 months, and 9 days of active service this period and 11 months and 29 days of foreign service.  He was also credited with 2,043 days of time lost.  His DD Form 214 lists in:

* Item 26 – 

* National Defense Service Medal
* Vietnam Service Medal with two bronze service stars
* Vietnam Campaign Medal
* Army Commendation Medal
* Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation
* Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar

* Item 29 – the entry "Separatee unavailable for signature"
* Item 30 (Typed Name, Grade, and title of Authorizing Officer) – SXXXXXX K. KXXXX, Chief Warrant Officer Four, USA, Assistant Adjutant General
* Item 31 – the signature of the authorizing officer

13.  His records also contain a memorandum, subject: Reason and Authority for Separation, dated 24 October 1975, wherein the Assistant Adjutant General, SXXXXXX K. KXXXX, advised the applicant in writing of his separation on 24 October 1975 by reason of conduct triable by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200.

14.  His records contain and he also provided an undated memorandum, subject: Notification of Discharge, which notified him of his separation from the Army on 24 October 1975 with an undesirable discharge.  The memorandum advised that his discharge papers would be sent to him by certified mail to the address he had given as his permanent mailing address.

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

* Item 40 (Wounds) no entry to show he was wounded, once or twice, in action while serving in Vietnam  
* Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) all the awards listed on his DD Form 214

16.  He further provided copies of the following:

   a.  A VA Form 21-4138, dated 13 March 1985, wherein he stated his disagreement with the denial of VA benefits.  He also stated that his period of AWOL was due to a psychiatric condition incurred in the combat zone as evidenced by his VA medical records.

   b.  Two undated letters of support addressed to the ADRB wherein his son and brother attested that the applicant served honorably during two tours in Vietnam and was supposed to receive two awards of the Purple Heart and Bronze Star Medal.  The applicant had mental problems and did not do well with being responsible.  The applicant attempted to receive compensation for his life destroyed while in Vietnam.  The applicant deserves the help.

17.  He also provided a copy of a letter, dated 10 February 1986, wherein the Chief, Army Discharge Review Board Section, USAR Personnel Center, advised him that efforts to reconstruct his official military personnel file had been unsuccessful; therefore, sufficient documentation for review could not be obtained.  His case was closed without further action.

18.  On 27 October 1986, the ADRB denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge.

19.  He provided a document concerning the Agent Orange Veteran Payment Program.  This document shows, in December 1989, Congress passed a law called the Agent Orange Compensation Exclusion Action, Public Law Number 101-201.  Further information about rights under this law could be obtained by contacting the National Veterans Services Project.

20.  On 19 April 2001, in response to his request for an upgrade of his discharge to receive VA benefits, the ABCMR determined that the type of discharge directed and the reasons for that separation were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

21.  He also provided copies of the following:

   a.  A letter to the SSA (pages 5 and 6) wherein it states on page 6 that he suffered a nervous breakdown while in Vietnam.

   b.  A VA Progress Note, dated 19 August 2002, which shows he was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, mixed; anxiety disorder; and PTSD by reason of his combat experiences.

   c.  A letter, dated 16 February 2005, wherein the applicant's doctor stated the applicant had advised him that he was no longer allowed to use the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System and receive care from the PTSD clinic by reason of his undesirable discharge.  He advised the VA that the applicant was first seen in the PTSD clinic on 19 August 2002.  He was diagnosed with PTSD and was subsequently seen for medication management.  He stated the applicant had documented combat time and without over-endorsing symptoms met the criteria for PTSD.  

   d.  A VA Progress Note, dated 19 April 2009, wherein a psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant with chronic PTSD and depression.

   e.  A newspaper article which showed his picture and stated he had received two awards of the Purple Heart and Bronze Star Medal for efforts against the enemy in Vietnam.

   f.  Seven pictures – three allegedly of himself, one of a hut fire, and three of corpses.

   g.  Information on Katum, Vietnam, wherein the location and daily activities were described.


22.  His name is not shown on the Vietnam casualty roster.

23.  A review of the Awards and Decorations Computer-Assisted Retrieval System, an index of general orders issued during the Vietnam era between 1965 and 1973 maintained by the Awards and Decorations Branch of the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, failed to reveal any orders for two awards of the Purple Heart and Bronze Star Medal pertaining to the applicant.

24.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel.  The regulations stated in:

   a.  Chapter 10 - a Soldier whose conduct rendered him triable by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge could request a discharge for the good the service in lieu of a trial.  The regulation required that there had been no element of coercion involved in the submission of such a request and that the applicant was provided an opportunity to consult with counsel.  The Soldier was required to sign the request indicating he understood he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), the adverse nature of such a discharge, and the possible consequences thereof.  The regulation required that the request be forwarded through channels to the general court-martial convening authority.  An Undesirable Discharge Certificate would have normally been furnished an individual who was discharged for the good of the service at the time.

   b.  Paragraph 3-7a - an honorable discharge was a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally had met the standards of acceptance conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.

   c.  Paragraph 3-7b - a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable condition.  When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

25.  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." 

26.  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.

27.  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. 

28.  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.  

29.  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.

30.  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?

31.  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.

32.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Award) states:

   a.  The Purple Heart is awarded for a wound sustained as a result of enemy action.  Substantiating evidence must be provided to verify that the wound was the result of hostile action, the wound must have required treatment by medical personnel, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record.  When contemplating an award of this decoration, the key issue that commanders must take into consideration is the degree to which the enemy caused the injury.  The fact that the proposed recipient was participating in direct or indirect combat operations is a necessary prerequisite, but is not sole justification for award.  Examples of enemy-related injuries which clearly justify award of the Purple Heart are as follows:

		(1)  Injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel, or other projectile created by enemy action.

		(2)  Injury caused by enemy placed mine or trap.

		(3)  Injury caused by enemy released chemical, biological, or nuclear agent.

		(4)  Injury caused by vehicle or aircraft accident resulting from enemy fire.

		(5)  Concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy generated explosions.

	b.  Examples of injuries or wounds which clearly do not justify award of the Purple Heart are as follows:

		(1)  Accidents, to include explosive, aircraft, vehicular, and other accidental wounding not related to or caused by enemy action.

		(2)  Self-inflicted wounds, except when in the heat of battle and not involving gross negligence.

   c.  The Bronze Star Medal is awarded to any person who, while serving in any capacity in or with the Army of the United States after 6 December 1941, distinguished himself or herself by heroic or meritorious achievement or service, not involving participation in aerial flight, in connection with military operations against an armed enemy; or while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. 

33.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, established the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  The purpose of the separation document was to provide the individual with documentary evidence of their military service.  It was important that information entered on the form should be complete and accurate.  The regulation stated:

* Item 29 would be left blank on all copies delivered to the separatee when the separatee could not or would not sign; all other copies, "Separatee unavailable for signature" would be entered
* Item 31 would show the signature of the official preparing the DD Form 214 shown in item 30

34.  Title 10 of the U.S. Code (USC), section 1130, provides the legal authority for consideration of proposals for decorations not previously submitted in a timely fashion such as the Bronze Star Medal.  Upon the request of a Member of Congress, the Secretary concerned shall review a proposal for the award of or upgrading of a decoration.  Based upon such review, the Secretary shall determine the merits of approving the award.

35.  The requests, with a DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), must be submitted through a Member of Congress to:  Commander, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, ATTN:  AHRC-PDP-A, 1600 Spearhead Division Avenue, Fort Knox, KY  40122.  The unit must be clearly identified, along with the period 

of assignment and the recommended awards.  A narrative of the actions or period for which recognition is being requested must accompany the DA Form 638.  Requests should be supported by sworn affidavits, eyewitness statements, certificates, and related documents.  Supporting evidence is best provided by commanders, leaders, and fellow Soldiers who had personal knowledge of the facts relative to the request.  The burden and costs of researching and assembling supporting information rest with the applicant.

36.  The VA Public Heath website related to Agent Orange states the VA assumes that certain diseases can be related to a veteran’s qualifying military service, referring to these diseases as "presumptive diseases."  The VA has recognized certain cancers, including prostate cancer, and other health problems as presumptive diseases associated with exposure to Agent Orange or other herbicides during military service.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  With regard to an upgrade of the applicant's UD based on his diagnosis of PTSD:

   a.  He served in Vietnam from 31 July 1968 through 29 July 1969.  Upon his return from Vietnam he was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 5 November through 31 December 1969.  He was subsequently charged with being AWOL from 25 February through 23 October 1970, 26 October through 11 November 1970, and 2 December 1970 through 12 August 1975.

   b.  His record is void of the complete facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge; however, his records contain a DD Form 458, dated 18 August 1975, which confirms he was charged with the above periods of AWOL.

   c.  Upon receipt of court-martial charges he appears to have voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 
635-200 in lieu of court-martial.  This discharge request was a voluntary request in lieu by court-martial.  He would have been notified in writing of his approved discharge at the mailing address he provided.

   d.  Without evidence to the contrary, it appears his administrative discharge for misconduct was accomplished in compliance with applicable law and regulations in effect at the time with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  The characterization of his discharge was presumably commensurate with the reason for discharge and overall record of military service in accordance with the governing regulations in effect at the time.

   e.  At the time of his 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.

   f.  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.
   
   g.  His VA Progress Notes show on 19 August 2002 he was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, mixed; anxiety disorder; and PTSD by reason of his combat experiences and began receiving treatment.  On 19 April 2009, a VA psychiatrist diagnosed him with chronic PTSD and depression.  Therefore, it is reasonable to believe the applicant's PTSD condition existed at the time of discharge. 

   h.  His records shows he was convicted by a special court-martial and charged with the offenses of being AWOL.  Without evidence to the contrary, it appears his misconduct consisted of lengthy periods of being AWOL.
   
   i.  It is concluded that the PTSD condition was a causative factor in the misconduct that led to his 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 and restoring his rank/grade to SP4/E-4 with an effective date of 12 May 1968.  However, because of this same misconduct his service did not rise to the level required for a fully honorable discharge.

2.  His contentions that he was awarded two Purple Hearts and they were to be mailed to him is acknowledged.  However, no orders or evidence was found either in his service personnel record or in the ADCARS data base.  Furthermore, item 40 of his DA Form 20 does not show he was wounded in action in Vietnam.  Additionally, Item 41 of this form does not list any awards of the Purple Heart.  His name is also not on the Vietnam casualty roster.

   a.  His SFs 600 and 513 indicate he sustained injuries to his left hand and right foot while in Vietnam.  The evidence does not indicate those injuries were a result of hostile action.  

   b.  By regulation, to be awarded the Purple Heart it is necessary to established that a Soldier was wounded or injured in action.  There must be evidence confirming the wound for which the award is being made was received as a direct result of, or was caused by enemy action, that the wound was treated by medical personnel, and a record of this treatment must have been made a matter of official record.  

   c.  Notwithstanding his contentions and his sincerity, there is insufficient evidence upon which to base two awards of the Purple Heart.  

3.  With regard to his request for correction of his 1975 DD Form 214 to show his award of the Bronze Star Medal.  No documentary evidence was found either in his service personnel record or in the ADCARS data base.  Notwithstanding his contentions and his sincerity, in the absence of evidence showing he was authorized or awarded the Bronze Star Medal and evidence showing he met the criteria for this award there is insufficient evidence upon which to support the requested relief.

4.  While the available evidence is insufficient for correcting his 1975 DD Form 214 to show the Bronze Star Medal, this in no way affects his right to pursue his claim for this award by submitting a request through his Member of Congress under the provisions of Title 10, USC, section 1130.

5.  With regard to items 29 and 31 of his 1975 DD Form 214:

   a.  The evidence shows he was unavailable to sign his DD Form 214; therefore, he would have received it through the mail.  There is no indication he raised any issue regarding item 29 of this form at the time he received and accepted the document.   

   b.  By regulation, item 29 would be left blank on all copies delivered to the separatee when the separatee could not sign.  All other copies of the DD Form 214 would contain the entry, "Separatee unavailable for signature."  Therefore, there is no error or a basis for correction of this item 29. 

   c.  His records contain a copy of his DD Form 214 which appropriately contains in item 29 the entry, "Separatee unavailable for signature" and in item 31 the signature of the authorizing officer.  A copy of this DD Form 214 will be provided to him with this Record of Proceedings.

6.  Award of benefits for service-connected disabilities related to Agent Orange are not within the purview of this Board.  He should discuss this issue with a VA representative.



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 amendment of the ABCMR’s decision in Docket Number AR2001051230, dated 
19 April 2001.  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, dated 24 October 1975, to show the characterization of service as "General, Under Honorable Conditions" and his rank/grade as 
SP4/E-4 with an effective date of 12 May 1968.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief as it pertains to the new issues.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to correcting his DD Form 214, dated 24 October 1975 by:

* adding two awards of the Purple Heart to his DD Form 214
* adding the Bronze Star Medal to his DD Form 214
* correcting item 29 to show his signature



      _______ _   _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)                                         AR20140016996



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140016996



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1