IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	 15 September 2015 

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150001535 


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 the correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the period ending 2 February 1971 to show:

* his character of service as honorable vice under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC)
* the dates of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) period as 1 February to 1 November 1970

2.  The applicant states, effect:

	a.  He had a mental breakdown when he was in Vietnam and was hospitalized for 1 month.  He was medically evacuated from Vietnam to Japan where he was hospitalized for 2 months.  From Japan, he was medically evacuated to Fort Campbell, KY, and hospitalized there.  He went absent without leave (AWOL) while he was hospitalized at Fort Campbell and takes full responsibility for his actions.  It is his contention that if he had not become mentally ill he would not have gone AWOL; therefore, he should not have received an under other than honorable conditions discharge for his second period of service.  He went AWOL from February to November 1970.

	b.  He entered the Army in September 1966, completed basic training at Fort Campbell, and advanced individual training at Huntsville, AL.  On 28 March 1967, he shipped out to Vietnam and was caught in the first TET Offense and was pinned down on a ship.  A friend shot himself in the head.  In 1968, he did not want to go home as Vietnam veterans were not welcomed.  They were spit on and called baby killers, crazy, and shell-shocked.  He arrived in Memphis, TN, and in March 1968 Martin Luther King was killed.  He just wanted to go back to Vietnam but was sent to Fort Sill, OK.  He was told he could go back to Vietnam if he reenlisted so he did.

	c.  In May 1969, his orders for Vietnam came in and he went on leave.  While on leave, his brother had a heat stroke and died so his leave was extended for 2 weeks.  In June 1969, he reported to Seattle, WA.  All the living quarters there were full and he had to stay outside [the post] for 3 weeks waiting on orders to be shipped to Vietnam.  His finance records were misplaced and he didn’t receive any pay.  

	d.  He arrived in DaNang, Vietnam, and doesn’t know how long he was there before he snapped; he wanted to die.  He was shipped to a mental hospital in Japan and in September 1970 (i.e., 1969), he was shipped to Fort Campbell where he was strapped down.  There was stealing and he was not getting paid so he went AWOL for 9 months.  He made some money but there were too many things going through his mind and he needed help so he returned to Fort Campbell.  He was given a shotgun and made a stockade guard for about 3 months.  

	e.  On 2 February 1971, he was given an undesirable discharge, not a dishonorable discharge.  So why does his DD Form 214 show his service from 13 June 1968 to 2 February 1971 was dishonorable?  He was only AWOL for 9 months from 19 February to November 1970.  He still relives those minutes, hours, days, months, and years, and nights are the worst.  He would like his discharge upgraded/changed.  He was used, then they said he was not good; they didn’t try to help him.

3.  The applicant provides two DD Forms 214, orders, and a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision.

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 enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 13 September 1966 and he held military occupational specialty (MOS) 55B (Ammunition Storage Specialist).  He was promoted to the rank/grade of specialist four (SP4)/E-4 on 28 December 1967.  He served in Vietnam from 25 March 1967 to 24 March 1968.  On 2 May 1968, he was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 18th Artillery, Fort Sill, OK.

3.  On 12 June 1968, he was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  The DD Form 214 he was issued for this period of service shows he completed 1 year and 9 months of creditable active service.

4.  On 13 June 1968, he reenlisted in the RA at Fort Sill in the rank of SP4.  On 24 December 1968, his unit was notified that he had been arrested by civil authorities.  He was subsequently returned to his assigned unit.

5.  On 10 April 1969, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time.

6.  On 22 August 1969, he was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 12th Artillery, Vietnam, in MOS 13A (Field Artillery Basic).  His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows that in October 1969, he was medically evacuated from Vietnam and was subsequently assigned in a patient status to the U.S. Army Hospital (USAH), Fort Campbell.

7.  On 20 October 1969, he was diagnosed with a mental disorder by a psychiatrist at the USAH, Fort Campbell.  He was issued a temporary 3 profile in the S (Psychiatric) category of the PULHES.  The DA Form 3349 (Medical Condition - Physical Profile Record), dated 20 October 1969, shows his assignment restrictions included no severe psychological stress, no handling of firearms, and restriction of assignment to the continental United States (CONUS).  It was determined his condition was temporary, the profile expired on 20 January 1970, and he was to report to the medical facility on that date for further physical profile evaluation or medical treatment and disposition.

8.  On 10 December 1969, he was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), U.S. Army Training Center (USATC) and Fort Campbell, in MOS 55B.
9.  On or about 5 January 1970, he was reported as AWOL from his assigned unit and on 31 January 1970, he was dropped from the rolls as a deserter.  

10.  On 16 November 1970, he was apprehended and returned to military control at Fort Campbell.  He was confined in the Fort Campbell Post Stockade.

11.  The specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge processing are not available for review with this case.  However, it appears court-martial charges were subsequently preferred against him for being AWOL from on or about 1 January to 15 November 1970.

12.  Special Orders (SO) Number 26, dated 27 January 1971, issued by Headquarters (HQ), USATC and Fort Campbell reduced the applicant from SP4 to private (PV1)/E-1 effective 18 January 1971.  These orders also assigned him to the U.S. Army Transfer Point, Fort Campbell, with a reporting date of 2 February 1971, for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial.

13. The DD Form 214 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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) characterization of service.  He completed 1 year and 9 months, and 12 days of net active service during this period of service and he had 315 days of lost time due to being AWOL.

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

15.  The applicant provides a VA Rating Decision, dated 28 December 2010, wherein it shows, in part, that his evaluation for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with major depression was increased from 50 percent (%) disabling to 100% disabling effective 10 June 2010. 

16.  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.

17.  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.

18.  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.

19.  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." 

20.  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.

21.  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. 

22.  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.

23.  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.

24.  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?

25.  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.  Although the specific facts surrounding the applicant’s discharge processing are not known, it appears he requested to be discharged in lieu of court-martial and that his discharge proceedings for misconduct were conducted in accordance with law and regulations in effect at the time.  The characterization of his discharge was commensurate with the reason for his discharge and his overall record of military service during the period 13 June 1968 to 2 February 1971.

2.  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.  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.

3.  A review of the applicant's record shows that he was subjected to the ordeals of war while serving in the Vietnam from March 1967 to 1968 and upon returning to Vietnam in August 1969.  Of particular note is that he was diagnosed with a mental disorder in October 1969, less than 2 months after his arrival for his second tour of duty in Vietnam, and it appears his mental condition was the reason for his medical evacuation from Vietnam in October 1969.

4.  Subsequent to these experiences, medical evidence shows he was diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional.  Therefore, it is reasonable to believe the applicant's PTSD condition existed at the time of his discharge. 

5.  It is concluded that PTSD was 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 sufficient mitigating evidence to warrant upgrading the characterization of his service to a general discharge under honorable conditions and restoring his rank/grade to specialist four (SP4)/E-4, the rank he held when he reenlisted in the RA on 13 June 1968.

6.  With respect to his request for an honorable discharge, he is not entitled to an honorable discharge because an honorable discharge 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 meritorious.  Based on his history of NJP and being AWOL for almost 11 months, his service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct also renders his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, when weighing the same above factors, the applicant's overall service does not rise to a fully honorable characterization of service.  
BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

_____X___  __X______  ___X_____  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by
re-issuing the applicant's DD Form 214 for the period ending 2 February 1971 to show the characterization of service as "General, Under Honorable Conditions" and his rank/grade as SP4/E-4 with an effective date of 13 June 1968. 

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to upgrading his discharge to honorable or changing the dates of his service.  



      _______ _   _X______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150001535



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150001535



11


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1