IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  21 May 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150001630 


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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states he reenlisted in Vietnam.  His first discharge is honorable.  He went absent without leave (AWOL) after he suffered a head wound and he believes suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  He was involved in combat for 9 months.  He states his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) does not show his Combat Infantryman Badge, Purple Heart or any other medals for his Vietnam service.

3.  The applicant provides:

* a memorandum, dated 3 September 2014, from the Secretary of Defense
* military personnel records
* service medical records 
* pre-service medical records

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.  In the processing of this case the ABCMR was unable to obtain the applicant's military personnel service records from the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, MO.  The only records available to the ABCMR were provided by the applicant.  The records he provided were sufficient for the Board to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case.  

3.  On 4 October 1968, he enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11F (Infantry Operations and Intelligence Specialist).

4.  He served in the Republic of Vietnam from 22 June 1969 to 21 June 1970.  He participated in one campaign during his first enlistment and two additional campaigns after his reenlistment.  He was assigned to:

* Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), 2nd Battalion, 
8th Infantry from 5 July - 8 November 1969
* Security Guard Company, U.S. Army Depot, Long Binh from 9 November 1969 - 21 June 1970

5.  From 1-10 July 1969, he was treated at the 71st Evacuation Hospital for acute bronchitis and acute urethritis.  Both conditions were in line of duty.

6.  On 19 August 1969, he was treated for neck and back injuries he suffered as a result of a jeep accident.  There are no entries indicating the accident was a result of hostile action.  Buckshot was noted in his cervical/thoracic (also noted on his induction examination, dated 26 September 1968).  He was returned to the field on 27 August 1969. 

7.  On 29 September 1969, he was discharged to immediately reenlist.  He had completed 11 months and 25 days of active service that was characterized as honorable.  His DD Form 214 shows he was authorized the National Defense Service Medal and the Vietnam Service Medal.  

8.  Item 40 (Wounds) of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) is blank.  Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) of his DA Form 20 does not show he was awarded the Purple Heart or the Combat Infantryman Badge.  There are no orders awarding him the Purple Heart or the Combat Infantryman Badge.

9.  On 30 September 1969, he immediately reenlisted for 3 years.

10.  He accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on:

* 2 February 1970 for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed     place of duty
* 18 April 1970 for being in Saigon without a DD Form 345 (Armed Forces Liberty Pass)

11.  In April 1970, he received treatment for severe headaches with temporary loss of vision.  It was noted that he suffered head trauma 9 months previously (August 1969).  One entry notes he was injured by shrapnel to the back of his head.  However, the entry from August 1969 indicates his injury was due to a jeep accident.

12.  On 29 May 1970, he was tried before a special court-martial.  He pled guilty and was found guilty of:

*  assaulting Sergeant (SGT) C by grabbing him by the collar of his shirt and  pushing him
*  wrongfully communicating to SGT C a threat to shoot him with an M-16     rifle

13.  In June 1970, he continued to be treated for headaches with dizziness that got worse when he was overheated.  On 5 June, while driving his vision got blurred and he blacked-out. 

14.  On 19 August 1970, he was assigned to F Troop, 2nd Squadron, 
6th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort George G. Meade, MD.

15.  On 3 September 1970, he was placed on temporary profile to expire 
3 December 1970 for fainting episodes.  His assignment limitations were:

* no assignment to isolated areas where definitive medical care was not available
* no assignment requiring prolonged handling of heavy materials including weapons, no overhead work, and no pull-ups or push-ups
* no assignment to unit where sudden loss of consciousness would be dangerous to self or others, such as work on scaffolding, handling ammunition, vehicle driving, or work near moving machinery

16.  There are no service medical records available after 3 September 1970.

17.  On 24 March 1971, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from on or about 4 September 1970 to on or about 
19 March 1971. 

18.  The applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10.  He acknowledged he had been afforded the opportunity to speak with counsel prior to making his request.  He acknowledged he understood the elements of the offense he was charged with and he was:

*  making the request of his own free will
*  making a statement in his own behalf (not available for review)
*  advised he might be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate

19.  He acknowledged he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he were issued an undesirable discharge and he:

*  would be deprived of many or all Army benefits
*  might be ineligible for many or all veterans' benefits
*  might be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both           Federal and State laws

20.  On 27 April 1971, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

21.  On 12 May 1971, he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service with an undesirable discharge.  He completed 1 year and 29 days on this enlistment that was characterized as under conditions other than honorable.  He had 196 days time lost.  His DD Form 214 shows he is authorized the National Defense Service Medal.

22.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) lists campaign participation credit, assault landing credit, unit citation emblems awarded during the Vietnam Conflict.  

	a.  The 2nd Battalion, 8th Infantry was awarded the:

*  Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation for the 	      periods October 1966 - 28 July 1969 and 29 July 1969 - 17 November 	1970
*  Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit                 Citation for the period 1 October 1966 - 31 October 1969
	
	b.  Not more than one Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation will be worn by any individual.  However, although wear of multiple awards of this unit citation is not authorized, official military personnel and historical records will indicate all awards received.

23.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual and unit military awards.

	a.  The Combat Infantryman Badge is awarded to infantry officers and to enlisted and warrant officer persons who have an infantry MOS.  They must have served in active ground combat while assigned or attached to an infantry unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size.  Additionally, appendix V of U.S. Army Vietnam Regulation 672-1 (Decorations and Awards) states that during the Vietnam era the Combat Infantryman Badge was awarded only to enlisted individuals who held and served in MOS 11B, 11C, 11D, 11F, 11G, or 11H.

	b.  The award of a bronze service star is authorized based on qualifying service for each campaign listed in Table B-1 (Campaigns, Service Requirements, and Inscriptions Prescribed for Streamers).  Authorized service stars will be worn on the appropriate campaign medal, including the Vietnam Service Medal.

	c.  The Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960) was awarded by the Government of the Republic of Vietnam to all members of the Armed Forces of the United States for qualifying service in Republic of Vietnam during the period 1 March 1961 through 28 March 1973.  Qualifying service included assignment in the Republic of Vietnam for 6 months or more.  

24.  Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System), chapter 9 of the version in effect at the time, stated, in pertinent part, that a brief description of wounds or injuries (including injury from gas) requiring medical treatment that were received through hostile or enemy action, including those requiring hospitalization would be entered in item 40 of the DA Form 20.  This regulation further stated that the date the wound or injury occurred would also be placed in item 40.

25.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), then in effect, stated that all decorations, service medals, campaign credits, and badges awarded or authorized will be entered in Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized).
26.  Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Chapter 10 stated a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge may, at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate.  At the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.

	b.  An honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitled the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization was clearly inappropriate.

	c.  A general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

27.  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." 

28.  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.

29.  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. 

30.  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.

31.  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 under other than honorable conditions 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.

32.  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?

33.  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 under other than honorable conditions 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 under other than honorable conditions.  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 processing was 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.  He contends his second enlistment was deeply affected by his PTSD.  There is no available evidence showing he received any treatment for a mental condition during his second enlistment or during his period of AWOL.

5.  There is no evidence the applicant has 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.

6.  There is no evidence his headaches were the cause of his going AWOL for 196 days.

7.  His long period of AWOL shows his service during his second enlistment was unsatisfactory.
  
8.  In view of the above, there is insufficient evidence to upgrade his discharge to general or honorable.

9.  Item 40 of his DA Form 20 is blank.  Item 41 of his DA Form 20 does not show he was awarded the PH.  His service medical records show that he suffered a head trauma as a result of a jeep accident on or about 19 August 1969.  There was no entry at the time of treatment that his injury or the accident were a result of hostile action.  Entries made later (April 1970) in his service medical records refer to a fragment wound to his head.  However, the treatment records at the time of the accident do not support these entries.  Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to show he was awarded the Purple Heart.

10.  He held MOS 11F and was assigned to HHC, 2nd Battalion, 8th Infantry in the Republic of Vietnam.  However, there is no evidence of record and he did not submit any substantive evidence that shows he served in active ground combat as an infantryman while assigned to this company.  Therefore, there is insufficient evidence showing he was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge.

11.  During his first enlistment he participated in one campaign in the Republic of Vietnam.  During his second enlistment he participated in two additional campaigns.  During his service with the 2nd Battalion, 8th Infantry the unit was awarded two awards of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation.  He was assigned in the Republic of Vietnam for more than 6 months.   Therefore:

	a.  His DD Form 214 with an effective date of 29 September 1969 should show the Vietnam Service Medal with 1 bronze service star, the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation (2 awards), and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation.  

	b.  His DD Form 214 with an effective date of 12 May 1971 should show the Vietnam Service Medal with 3 bronze service stars, the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation (2 awards), the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation, and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960).

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 :

	a.  Amending his DD Form 214 with an effective date of 29 September 1969 by deleting the Vietnam Service Medal and adding the:

* Vietnam Service Medal with 1 bronze service star
* Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation (2 awards)
* Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation

	b.  Amending his DD Form 214 with an effective date of 12 May 1971 by adding the:

* Vietnam Service Medal with 3 bronze service stars
* Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation (2 awards)
* Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation
* Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960)

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 the characterization of his discharge, the Purple Heart, and the Combat Infantryman Badge.



      ___________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)                                         AR20150001630



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150001630



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1