IN THE CASE OF:  	  

		BOARD DATE:  25 June 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150002219 


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 upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge based on his diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

2.  The applicant states he was suffering from PTSD as a result of his service in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) in 1968, which was the reason for his actions that led to his discharge.  He adds that he was diagnosed with PTSD in 2009.

3.  The applicant provides copies of his two DD Forms 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge/Report of Separation from Active Duty) and a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) letter.

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, and 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 was inducted into the Army on 21 November 1967.  He was awarded military occupational specialty 54D (Chemical Equipment Repairman).

3.  His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows in –

* item 31 (Foreign Service), he served in Vietnam from –

* 30 July 1968 through 28 September 1968
* 3 April 1969 through 13 November 1969

* item 33 (Appointments and Reductions), he was promoted to specialist four (SP4)/E-4 on 20 January 1969

* item 38 (Record of Assignments), in pertinent part –

* Chemical Equipment Repairman, 61st Heavy Equipment Maintenance Company, from 7 August 1968 through 11 September 1968

* Patient, Medical Hold Detachment, 106th General Hospital, from 
12 September through 27 September 1968
* Casual, enroute to the Continental United States (CONUS), 
28 September 1968
* Patient, Medical Hold Company, Brooke General Hospital, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, TX, 29 September 1968

* Senior Chemical Equipment Repairman, 98th Light Equipment Maintenance Company, from 7 April 1969 through 25 May 1969

* Patient, Medical Hold Detachment, 106th General Hospital, from 
26 May through 11 June 1969
* Casual, enroute to CONUS, 12 June 1969
* Patient, Medical Hold Company, Brooke General Hospital, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, TX, 14 June 1969

4.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he entered active duty on 21 November 1967, was honorably released from active duty on 27 June 1969, and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve.  He had completed 1 year, 7 months, and 7 days of total active duty service this period that included 10 months and 16 days of foreign service.


5.  A review of The Adjutant General's Office, Casualty Division's Vietnam casualty roster shows the applicant is listed as Casualty Category "M" (Battle Missing) and Casualty Status Code "33" (Missing in Action – Pending Identification) with no specified date.

6.  The applicant again enlisted the RA on 31 March 1971 for a period of 3 years.

7.  His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows in –

* item 6 (Military Occupational Specialties):  94B2O (Cook), 29 June 1972
* item 18 (Appointments and Reductions):  SP4, 1 April 1971

8.  On 29 April 1976, charges were preferred against the applicant under the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 23 October 1972 to 26 April 1976.

9.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel.  He was informed of the charge against him for violating the UCMJ and that he was pending trial by court-martial.  He was advised of the rights available to him and of the option to request discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

	a.  He voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant's request for discharge states he was not subjected to coercion with respect to his request for discharge.

	b.  He was advised that he might be –

* deprived of many or all Army benefits
* ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA
* deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws

   c.  He acknowledged he understood that, if his request for discharge was accepted, he might be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

	d.  He was also advised that he could submit statements in his own behalf and he elected not to submit any statements.

   e.  The applicant and his counsel placed their signatures on the document.

10.  The applicant's commander recommended approval of the applicant's request for discharge with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge.

11.  The separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge, ordered his reduction to the rank of private (E-1), and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

12.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he entered active duty this period on
31 March 1971 and he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 13 May 1976 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 with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He had completed 4 years, 4 months, and 7 days of net active service during this period; 1 year, 7 months, and 7 days of total prior active service; and 5 years, 
11 months, and 14 days of total active service.  He had 730 days of time lost.

13.  A review of the applicant's military personnel record failed to reveal evidence that his discharge was reviewed under the Department of Defense (DoD), Discharge Review Program (Special).  There is also no evidence that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for review of his discharge.

14.  In support of his application the applicant provides a letter from J--- M. S----, Medical Doctor (MD), VA Outpatient Clinic, Lufkin, TX, prepared sometime during April-May 2015.  Doctor S--- wrote, "I am writing to you at his [applicant's] request, as [applicant] has informed me that he is very much in need of documentation that he has indeed received a diagnosis of PTSD from the Department of VA.  His assertion that this has been his mental health diagnosis is correct.  He also stated, "[a]pplicant] has first been interview [sic] by staff psychiatrist, Doctor D--- P----, at the VA Outpatient Clinic in Lufkin, TX.  PTSD was given as his diagnosis that day."  He added, "This diagnosis was again made at his most recent visit to this VA clinic on 15 January 2015."

15.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

   b.  Chapter 3, 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.

   c. 	Chapter 3, 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.

16.  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." 

17.  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.


18.  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. 

19.  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 DoD acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge.  It is also acknowledged that in some cases this undiagnosed condition of PTSD may have been a mitigating factor in the Soldier's misconduct which served as a catalyst for their discharge.  Research has also shown that misconduct stemming from PTSD is typically based upon a spur of the moment decision resulting from temporary lapse in judgment; therefore, PTSD is not a likely cause for either premeditated misconduct or misconduct that continues for an extended period of time.  

20.  In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards 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.

21.  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?

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

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations in effect at the time.  The characterization of the applicant's discharge was commensurate with his overall record of military service and the reason for discharge was in accordance with the governing regulations in effect at the time.
2.  At the time of the applicant's discharge in 1976, 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.  Records show the applicant had prior honorable active duty service from 
21 November 1967 through 27 June 1969.

   a.  During this period, he was assigned overseas to the RVN on two separate occasions.  In both instances, he was medically evacuated from the theater of operations within two months of his arrival.  In addition, the evidence of record shows he was missing in battle for an unspecified period.

   b.  After a break in his military service, he reentered active duty in the RA and subsequently went AWOL from his unit in CONUS.

   c.  Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the trauma he experienced in the RVN resulted in his subsequent continuous period of AWOL that led to his discharge.

5.  The applicant requested and accepted an Undesirable Discharge. 

6.  The medical evidence of record shows the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD/PTSD-related symptoms by a competent mental health professional.  Therefore, it is reasonable to believe the applicant's PTSD condition existed during the period of service that is under review. 

7.  Thus, it is concluded that the PTSD conditions were a causative factor in the misconduct that led to the discharge.  After carefully weighing that fact against the severity of the applicant's misconduct, there is 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 1 April 1971.


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 reissuing the applicant's 13 May 1976 DD Form 214 showing the characterization of service as "General, Under Honorable Conditions," his rank as "SP4/E-4," and his date of rank as "1 April 1971."

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented was 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 upgrade to a fully honorable discharge.




      _______ _   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)                                         AR20150002219



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150002219



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1