IN THE CASE OF:  	  

		BOARD DATE:  25 June 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150002570


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 an upgrade of his discharge from an under other than honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. 

2.  The applicant states his performance and duty in the Republic of Vietnam was excellent and honorable.  While in combat he developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which went undiagnosed and therefore untreated.

3.  The applicant provides:

* a two-page letter of support from a chaplain
* DA Form 2166 (Commander's Evaluation Report) with rating characteristics (two pages)
* a newspaper article
* Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) decision letter, dated 21January 1983
* DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), dated 22 December 1982
* two letters from the ADRB, dated 28 June 1982 and 25 August 1982, respectively, acknowledging his application 
* Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) decision letter with memorandum of consideration, dated 31 January 1996
* DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) with DD Form 215
* Letter of Appreciation issued by Company C, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Training Brigade, Fort Polk, LA, dated 10 December 1966
* Special Order Number 56 issued by Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division, dated 25 February 1967
* Unit Orders Number 49, issued by Company B, 2nd Battalion, 18th Infantry, dated 13 September 1967
* Special Orders Number 261, issued by Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division, dated 18 September 1967
* DA Form 20B (Insert Sheet to DA Form 20 – Record of Court-Martial Conviction), undated
* DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) page 4 only 
* one page with the number 2 subject: "Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service," with the applicant's and military counsel signatures 

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 was inducted in the Army of the United States on 9 August 1966.  After completing military training, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman).  The highest rank/grade held was specialist four/E-4.  

3.  He served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period 7 January 1967 to      5 January 1968.  While serving in Vietnam, he was assigned to Company B and then Company D, 2nd Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division.

4.  Special Orders Number 56 issued by Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division, on 25 February 1967, awarded him the Combat Infantryman Badge.

5.  On 3 April 1967, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being absent from his place of duty (AWOL) for the entire day on or about 31 March 1967.  He was reduced to private (E-2). 
6.  Records show, on his return to the United States on or about 8 January 1968, he never reported to his new duty station, Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 8th Armored Squadron, 1st Air Cavalry Regiment, Fort Knox, KY.

7.  Special Court-Martial Order Number 732 issued by Headquarters, Special Troops, U.S. Army Armor Center, Fort Knox, KY, dated 23 May 1968, shows he was convicted of being AWOL from on or about 20 February 1968 to on or about 7 May 1968.  He was sentenced to restriction for 60 days and forfeiture of two months' pay.

8.  Special Court-Martial Order Number 115 issued by Headquarters, Special Troops, Fort Campbell, KY, dated 3 March 1969, shows he was convicted of the following:

* Specification 1 of Article 86 of the UCMJ; specifically for being AWOL from on or about 25 June 1968 to on or about 22 July 1968
* Specification 2 of Article 86 of the UCMJ; specifically for being AWOL from on or about 29 July 1968 to on or about 12 December 1968
* Specification 3 of Article 86 of the UCMJ; specifically for being AWOL from on or about 15 December 1968 to on or about 25 January 1969

9.  The applicant was AWOL from on or about 7 March 1969 to on or about         5 July 1969.  He was returned to military control and on an unknown date, his commander preferred court-martial charges against him.

10.  He consulted with counsel on 11 August 1969, and voluntarily 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 for discharge, he indicated that he:

* had not been subjected to any coercion
* understood if the discharge request was approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration
* understood he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws
* elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf

11.  He underwent a separation medical examination on 19 August 1969 and was found fit for discharge.  He did not undergo a mental status evaluation.  However, there is an entry on his separation medical examination that states: "There are no reasonable grounds for belief that this individual is or ever has been mentally defective, deranged, or abnormal.  A psychiatric examination is not deemed to be appropriate."

12.  The separation authority approved his request for discharge for the good of the service on 9 September 1969, and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate and his reduction to the lowest grade. 

13.  Accordingly, he was discharged on 24 September 1969.  The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he was discharged for the good of the service with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service.  He completed 1 year, 11 months, and 7 days of total active service with 401 lost days.  Item 22c (Foreign and /or Sea Service) shows he served 11 months and 29 days in the U.S. Army Pacific (USARPAC).

14.  His medical records are not available for review with this case.  The available records are void of and he failed to provide evidence showing he was diagnosed with PTSD as a result of his service in Vietnam.

15.  In a 24 March 2015 letter to the applicant, the Board attempted to obtain medical documents, either personal and/or by the VA that supports his issue to PTSD.  On 7 April 2015, the applicant, through his friend, stated that no medical documents exist to support his PTSD issue.  He only has his story as an excellent combat infantryman and requests the benefit of the doubt.

16.  On 21 January 1983 the ADRB and on 31 January 1996 the ABCMR, respectively denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge and determined he was properly discharged.

17.  The applicant provides:

     a.  A letter of support from a chaplain friend, who recaps the applicant's service and situation, which in effect states:

* the applicant dropped out of high school and attempted to join the Army but failed the physical; however, he was drafted approximately        6 years later
* he has known him for 2 1/2 years and it is very difficult for him to discuss his time in the Republic of Vietnam
* he encouraged him to appeal his discharge due to the fact he believes the applicant has a severe case of PTSD brought on by his experiences in combat
* he believes his infractions [AWOLs] were related to the PTSD
* the applicant has been suffering with this disorder for over 48 years now and is currently a patient at a nursing home
* he states the most devastating thing was the death of his closest friend who was shot and killed by an enemy sniper
* the applicant states he was also wounded in late December 1967 just before his return stateside; however, out of anger and frustration declined the Purple Heart saying his injury was too minor 
* he went AWOL with only 5 months and 20 days left until his expiration term or service (ETS) of 8 August 1968
* he states his two previous appeals and he was surprised there was no mention of his excellent evaluation he received in the Republic of Vietnam
* he hopes a favorable ruling for the applicant and a grant of an Honorable Discharge for suffering over 48 years for what PTSD brought on him
* he states the applicant was a good combat Soldier and deserves the benefit of doubt at this time in his life

     b.  A DA Form 2166 with rating characteristics, dated 3 October 1967, that shows an excellent performance rating.

     c.  A newspaper article of the death of his closest friend.  It is undated but confirms his friend was killed in the Republic of Vietnam.

     d.  An ADRB decision letter, dated 21 January 1983, that denies his appeal for upgrading his discharge.

     e.  An ABCMR decision letter with memorandum of consideration document, dated 31 January 1996, that denies his appeal for upgrading his discharge. 

     f.  A Letter of Appreciation, dated 10 December 1966, from his commanding officer expressing his appreciation of his loyalty and support to the unit and excellence as a squad leader.

     g.  Copies of his orders promoting him to private first class and specialist four.

     h.  A DA Form 20B, page 4 of his DA Form 20, and the number 2 page of subject: "Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service," with the applicant's and military counsel signatures on it.  These documents show his AWOL time and his request for discharge from the service.


18.  Army Regulation 635-200 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 at any time after the charges have been preferred.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

   b.  Paragraph 3-7a provides an honorable discharge is given when the quality of the Soldier’s service has generally met standards of acceptable conduct and duty performance.  
   
   c.  Paragraph 3-7b states 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

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 (emphasis added).

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 (emphasis added)?
* 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 causeal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for an upgrade of his other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable was carefully considered.
2.  The applicant contends his duty performance in the Republic of Vietnam was excellent and honorable; however, it resulted in his combat-related PTSD, which went undiagnosed and therefore untreated.

3.  His records are void of evidence, and he did not provide any evidence that shows he was diagnosed with PTSD, then or now.  This is validated by his response, through his friend, to the Board's request for medical documents supporting his PTSD.

4.  The applicant was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  The evidence shows he voluntarily, willingly, and in writing requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  All requirements of law and regulation were met, and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.

5.  The evidence confirms he repeatedly went AWOL, once during his service in the Republic of Vietnam, and on five different occasions after returning to the United States.  His service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  His misconduct also rendered his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, he is not entitled to either an honorable or general discharge.

6.  Based upon the foregoing, there is insufficient basis upon which to grant the requested relief.

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)                                         AR20140016204



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150002570



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1