IN THE CASE OF:	   

		BOARD DATE:	  12 February 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140021629 


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 his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  He believes he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after he returned from Vietnam.  He was not the same person when he returned and he currently suffers from and has been diagnosed with PTSD due to his combat experience in Vietnam.  

   b.  When he went into the service he planned on serving for at least 20 years and volunteered to go to Vietnam.  Once there, he started drinking heavily and didn't even know where he was half the time.  One day while drunk, they changed the main rotor blade on a helicopter and the next day when it went on a mission the same rotor blade was shot off.  He always wondered if he had anything to do with it and it bothered him to the point that he was drinking a lot to forget.  To this day it has played on his mind.

	c.  He went on 30 days leave and then reported to Fort Hood, TX.  When he arrived, he was told his paperwork was messed up and he was put in a transit status for 30 days.  He continued to drink and by that time he was an alcoholic.  He ended up going to Iron Mountain, MI.  He was picked up by the Army and taken to Fort Leonard Wood, MO, where he was to go before a review board to determine his discharge status and write his statement.  In the meantime, while playing baseball, he tore his tendons and had surgery.  He was sent home for 30 days on rest and recuperation leave.  When he went returned [to Fort Leonard Wood] he didn't go in front of the review board or talk to anyone about his discharge.  He later found out he had an undesirable discharge.

	d.  If it had been his choice, he would have stayed in the Army.  If he had received help for his drinking back then, he would have been a different person.  All the bad choices he made were because of his alcoholism.  In the early 1980s, he went to the hospital to get help.  It helped for awhile but he was unsuccessful in stopping completely.  He drank until 1995 when his drinking came to a stop.  He has not touched a drop of alcohol since then.

3.  The applicant provides seven statements of support.

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.  Having had prior active service, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 March 1970.  He was assigned to the 1st School Battalion, Fort Eustis, VA, on 17 July 1970. 

3.  On 10 November 1970, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for:

* violating a lawful regulation by exceeding the mileage limitations for a regular pass
* being absent from his appointed place of duty at the appointed time

4.  On 27 November 1970, he was reported as absent without leave (AWOL) from his assigned unit.  On 7 December 1970, he returned to military control at Fort Eustis.  On 3 February 1971, he was reported as AWOL from his assigned unit and he was dropped from the rolls (DFR) as a deserter.  

5.  On 26 February 1971, he returned to military control at Fort Belvoir, VA.  He was assigned to the Special Processing Battalion, Fort Belvoir.  He was reported as AWOL from his assigned unit from 19 to 24 March 1971 and from 20 to 29 April 1971.

6.  On 13 May 1971, he received NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for being AWOL from his assigned unit from:

* 27 November to 7 December 1970
* 3 to 26 February 1971
* 19 to 24 March 1971
* 20 to 29 April 1971

7.  He served in Vietnam from 13 June 1971 to 11 June 1972 while assigned as follows from:

* 18 June 1971 to 17 April 1972, the 162nd Assault Helicopter Company
* 18 April to 11 June 1972, the 7th Squadron, 17th Cavalry Regiment

8.  While serving in Vietnam, he received NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, on 8 January 1972 for:

* missing movement through design of a flight he was required to move on 8 November 1971
* missing movement through design of a flight he was required to move on 28 November 1971
* being AWOL from his assigned unit from 8 to  22 November 1971

9.  On 21 June 1972, he was assigned to the 34th Support Battalion, Fort Hood, TX.  On 5 July 1972, he was reported as AWOL from his assigned unit and he was DFR as a deserter.

10.  On 18 June 1973, he was apprehended and returned to military control at Fort Leonard Wood.  He was assigned to the Personnel Control Facility (PCF), Fort Leonard Wood. 

11.  On 29 June 1973, court-martial charges were preferred against him for one specification of being AWOL from 5 July 1972 to 18 June 1973.

12.  On 16 July 1973, he consulted with legal counsel who advised him of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of a request for discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.  

13.  On 10 August 1973, he 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.  In his request, he stated:

	a.  He was requesting a discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under circumstances that could lead to a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He had not been subjected to coercion with respect to his request for a discharge and had been advised of the implications that were attached to it.

	b.  He acknowledged that he understood if his request was accepted, he may be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He understood that as a result of such a discharge, he may be ineligible for many or all Amy benefits, many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA), and that he may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both State and Federal laws.  He also understood that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of an undesirable discharge.  

14.  With his request for a discharge, he submitted a statement on his own behalf wherein he stated, in part:

	a.  He was drafted in 1966 and spent time in Germany and Korea.  He went to school at Fort Eustis to change his military occupational specialty from 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman) to 68D (Aircraft Power Train Repairman).  He got married in Virginia while he was in school.  He was held over for 8 weeks and went AWOL when he asked for leave to take his wife home and his commander said no (emphasis added).  He was then sent to Fort Belvoir where he received an Article 15.  At that time, he had a chance to get out but decided to give it another shot.

	b.  When he returned from Vietnam, he knew he wanted to get out of the Army and so did his wife.  He was sent to Fort Hood where a private first class was put in charge of him so he went AWOL for 329 days.  One of the main reasons for going AWOL was money and another was his wife was ready to leave him.  The Army was driving him crazy and he couldn't think straight anymore; while he was AWOL, he was doing okay.

15.  On 16 August 1973, his immediate and intermediate commanders recommended approval of his request with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

16.  On 18 August 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for a discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  On 20 January 1970, he was discharged accordingly.

17.  The DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United Stated Report of Transfer or Discharge) he was issued for this period of service shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 - for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial (separation program number (SPN) 246), with an UOTHC of service.  He completed 2 years, 3 months, and 28 days of net active service and had 394 days (or 1 year and 29 days) of lost time due to being AWOL and/or in confinement.  The applicant signed the DD Form 214 in the appropriate block.

18.  The applicant's record is void of any medical evidence and he has not provided any medical evidence showing that he was diagnosed with any type of medical or mental condition/disorder either during or after his period of service.  His record is void of any evidence that shows he was identified as having a drinking problem or requested treatment for a drinking problem while serving on active duty.

19.  On 11 February 1974, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge and determined he was properly discharged.

20.  The applicant provides seven statements of support, two undated and five dated between 2 December 2000 and 3 December 2003, wherein family members, friends, and his former employer stated he was a dedicated, responsible family man and a loyal, conscientious employee whose attitude and work ethic exceeded expectations. 

21.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the version in effect at the time provided that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after court-martial charges were preferred.  Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service.  Consulting counsel would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses charged, the type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of VA benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge.  An Undesirable Discharge Certificate would normally be furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service.

22.  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 or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

23.  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.

24.  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." 

25.  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.

26.  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. 

27.  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.  

28.  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.

29.  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?

30.  Although the DOD acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge, it is presumed that they were properly discharged based upon the evidence that was available at the time.  Conditions documented in the record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge.  In cases in which PTSD or PTSD-related conditions may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge; those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the UOTHC characterization of service.  Corrections Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service of UOTHC.  Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat-related PTSD or PTSD-related conditions as a causative factor in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct.  PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct.  Corrections Boards will also exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of offenses punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.  Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.

2.  As such, he voluntarily requested a discharge to avoid trial by a court-martial. His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.

3.  The evidence of record does not show and he has not provided any evidence that shows he was diagnosed with service-related PTSD or any other mental condition.  His record does not show and he has not provided any evidence that shows he was diagnosed with or requested treatment for a drinking problem or any mental condition/disorder while serving on active duty.  

4.  The evidence of record confirms he repeatedly went AWOL both prior to and after his service in Vietnam.  Prior to his service in Vietnam, he received NJP on two separate occasions for violating a lawful regulation, being absent from his appointed place of duty, and for being AWOL on four different occasions.  While he was in Vietnam, he received NJP for missing movement on two separate occasions and for being AWOL.  After his service in Vietnam, he again went AWOL and had over 1 year of lost time due to being AWOL and/or in confinement at the time of his discharge.

5.  Based on this record of misconduct, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct also rendered his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting him an honorable discharge.

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)                                         AR20140021629



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140021629



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1