BOARD DATE:	  19 May 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150004859 


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 based on his diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

2.  The applicant states his discharge was related to his mental condition at the time.

   a.  In 1968 or 1969, he was assigned to Company B, U. S. Army Garrison, Fort Lewis, WA.  His duty for about one year was as a driver of an 18-wheeler truck.  He volunteered to go to Vietnam.  However, while driving a motorcycle from Seattle, Washington to San Diego, California he was involved in a major accident and hospitalized.  After being released from the hospital, he was sent to Vietnam even though his arm was still in a cast.

   b.  He has had multiple seizures from epilepsy and several strokes, so his memories about what happened to him in Vietnam are not clear.  He recalls being medically evacuated to a hospital in Japan and then being sent home.

   c.  He was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas and a psychologist or psychiatrist evaluated him.  He was advised that he needed to get out of the Army.  He believes that he resigned from the Army and was sent home.

   d.  He has suffered from PTSD since being in the Army and has been seen by several doctors throughout the years.  For the past 10 years he has basically remained home with his wife, but away from other people because he is unsure of how he will act.  The last time he had an incident he became so agitated that he was hospitalized with a broken neck.  He was placed in a medically induced coma in order to heal.
   
   e.  He believes that he has more issues (that he calls "fits") now than before.  He has flashbacks from things that he does not believe happened to him and he has recurring nightmares.  He also takes medication for other health issues.

   f.  Doctor R____ S. R____, Medical Doctor (MD), has treated him since 2005.  
He adds an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain medical care from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement (summarized above), a printout from the "My Army Benefits" website, and a doctor's note.

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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 December 1967 for a period of 3 years.  He was awarded military occupational specialty 64A (Light Vehicle Driver).

3.  His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows in:
	
   a.  item 38 (Record of Assignments), in pertinent part, he was:

* assigned to Fort Benning, GA, on 7 June 1968
* dropped from the rolls on 9 July 1968
* returned to military control at Fort Lewis, WA, on 12 November 1968
* assigned overseas to Vietnam on 16 November 1969
* a patient at 249th General Hospital on 26 November 1969
* assigned to Fort Sill, OK, on 20 March 1970
	b.  item 44 (Time Lost), seven entries showing 211 days of time lost due to being absent without leave (AWOL) and in confinement during the period 
31 March 1968 to 28 December 1968;

   c.  item 31 (Foreign Service), he served in Vietnam from 5 November 1969 through 4 December 1969;

   d.  item 33 (Appointments and Reductions), the highest rank he achieved was private first class/pay grade E-3 on 11 November 1969; and

   d.  item 40 (Wounds):  "Mortar shell-shock caused him to fall and break his arm, 26 November 1969."

4.  On 15 December 1970, charges were preferred against the applicant under the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being AWOL from 28 February 1970 to 6 November 1970.

5.  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
* be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration
* be 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 reduced to the pay grade of E-1.

	d.  He was also advised that he could submit statements in his own behalf and he elected to submit a statement.

   e.  The applicant and his counsel placed their signatures on the document.
   
   f.  A review of counsel's statement on behalf of the applicant shows he provided a summary of the applicant's assignments and noted that the applicant had one prior special court-martial conviction for AWOL in June 1968.  He also noted the applicant broke his arm in an automobile accident prior to going to Vietnam and that he was injured in Vietnam when the shock from a mortar shell caused him to fall and injure his arm.  He added the applicant was financially supporting his wife and son, and also both of his parents.

6.  On 21 December 1970, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation at Mental Hygiene Consultation Service (MHCS), Fort Hood, TX.  The examining official found there was no indication of psychiatric disorder, psychosis, or severe neurosis that would prevent administrative separation action.  In addition, there were no disqualifying mental defects sufficient to warrant his disposition through medical channels.  The certificate was signed by a social work officer and a medical doctor (i.e., Assistant Chief, MHCS).

7.  The applicant's commander recommended approval of the applicant's request for discharge with the issuance of an undesirable discharge.

8.  The separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge, ordered his reduction to the rank of private (E-1), and directed that his service be characterized as under other than honorable conditions.

9.  The applicant's DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he was discharged on 18 February 1971 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 1 year, 10 months, and 29 days of net active service during this period and he had 211 days of time lost.

10.  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).

11.  The applicant submitted an application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for review of his discharge.  On 3 October 1980, the ADRB determined that the reason for his discharge and the character of his service were both proper and equitable.  Accordingly, the ADRB denied the relief requested by the applicant.

12.  In support of his application the applicant provides a letter from Doctor R____ S. R____, MD, Mesquite, TX, that shows, "[t]his patient [the applicant] is currently under [his] care for the past 19 years for PTSD."

13.  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.

14.  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." 

15.  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.

16.  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. 

17.  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 (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.  

18.  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.

19.  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?

20.  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.  The applicant's record of indiscipline during his initial year of military service, including one special court-martial conviction for AWOL in June 1968, is noted.  
It is also noted that there is no evidence of record that shows separation action was initiated against the applicant for his acts of indiscipline during this period.  Instead, the applicant was assigned overseas to Vietnam.  Thus, it may be concluded that his service during this period was at least satisfactory.

3.  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.

4.  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.

5.  The evidence of record shows the applicant experienced an enemy-related trauma within the first month of his arrival in Vietnam and he was subsequently medically evacuated to the United States.  Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that this trauma resulted in his subsequent continuous period of AWOL that led to his discharge.

6.  The applicant then received a psychiatric evaluation and there were no disqualifying mental defects sufficient to warrant disposition through medical channels.  Thus, he requested and accepted an undesirable discharge. 


7.  Subsequent to these experiences, medical evidence 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 at the time of discharge. 

8.  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 PFC/E-3 with an effective date of 11 November 1969.

BOARD VOTE:

__X______  __X______  __X__  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for 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 showing the characterization of service as "General, Under Honorable Conditions," his rank as "PFC/E-3," and his date of rank as "11 November 1969."




      _______ _ 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)                                         AR20150004859



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150004859



11


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1