IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  4 August 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150005125 


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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) characterization of service.

2.  The applicant states he did not know he could request an upgrade of his discharge until he came across an article from the Secretary of Defense a short time ago.  The article stated veterans could apply for an upgrade due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) diagnosed him with PTSD.  If he had known he had PTSD when he got home from Vietnam, he could have addressed the problem then.  Unfortunately no one knew anything about PTSD in those days.  His service records show he was a good Soldier until he came home from Vietnam.

	a.  When he returned from Vietnam he was stationed at Fort Carson, CO.  He had a hard time letting people get close to him and it was hard to get along with others.  His wife and children moved out for a few months and things in his marriage seemed to get worse and worse as time went on; nevertheless, his wife and children returned to their home at Fort Carson, CO.  By the time his wife moved back in with him he had begun having severe nightmares.  Life had become very hard for him and he did not really understand what was going on within himself.  He found it hard to talk to anyone, including his wife, who took it upon herself to go to his commanding officer for help.  His commanding officer called him in to discuss his problems and brought up a hardship discharge to hopefully save his marriage.  This discussion led to his discharge.  After his discharge he returned home, but things were and still are difficult for him; he trusted no one and kept his distance from loved ones that cared for him the most.  
	b.  He has since divorced and remarried.  There are things that happened in Vietnam that he still does not talk about, things he will never understand.  His current wife talks to him about the nightmares she hears him having.  He usually does not remember much of them.  He tries to block them out of his mind.  His wife insisted that he get some help and now he is being seen by the VA in Greenville, SC.  He wants to understand why he feels the way he does after all these years.

	c.  He feels that he served his country honorably.  He realizes he was discharged before the end of his enlistment but he did everything that was asked of him and he would have done and still would do anything for his country.

3.  The applicant provides:

* 3 self-authored statements
* DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the period ending on 23 June 1970
* DA Form 2166-4 (Enlisted Efficiency Report) for the rating period July 1972 through January 1972
* Special Orders Number 271, dated 28 September 1973
* DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record)
* DD Form 214 for the period ending on 28 September 1973
* page 2 of a VA Rating Decision
* 21 pages of VA medical progress notes, printed on 27 May 2015

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 September 1969, held military occupational specialty 63C (General Vehicle Repairman), and attained the rank/grade of specialist four (SP4)/E-4.  He was honorably discharged for immediate reenlistment on 23 June 1970 and subsequently reenlisted in the Regular Army on 24 June 1970 for a 6-year period of service.

3.  His DA Form 20 shows, after basic combat and advanced individual training:

	a.  He was assigned to Fort Bragg, NC from 30 April 1970 to 21 August 1970. His conduct and efficiency were consistently rated as excellent during this period.

	b.  He was assigned to Vietnam from 23 September 1970 to 26 July 1971.  His conduct and efficiency were consistently rated as excellent during this period.

	c.  He was assigned to Fort Carson, CO from 26 October 1971 to 
28 September 1973.  During his assignment at Fort Carson his conduct and efficiency was rated as good for the period ending in January 1972 and later as unsatisfactory for the period ending in March 1973.  

4.  His record contains a DA Form 2627-1 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), which shows:

	a.  He accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 6 December 1972 for being absent from his appointed place of duty from on or about 1400 hours on 
3 December 1971 to on or about 1100 hours on 4 December 1972.

	b.  He accepted NJP on 21 December 1972 for being absent from his appointed place of duty (extra duty) on or about 1800 hours on 13 December 1972.

	c.  He accepted NJP on 7 May 1973 for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 17 April 1973 to 3 May 1973 (16 days).

5.  His record does not contain a separation packet; however, it does contain the following Special Orders (SO):

	a.  SO Number 242, issued by Headquarters, Fort Carson and Headquarters, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson CO on 30 August 1973, which show he had an approved separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13 (Separation for Unfitness or Unsuitability).

	b.  SO Number 271, issued by Headquarters, Fort Carson and Headquarters, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson CO on 28 September 1973, which directed his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unfitness and the issuance of an undesirable discharge, effective 28 September 1973.

6.  His DD Form 214 for the period ending on 28 September 1973 confirms he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 for unfitness due to frequent involvements of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities and that he received an under conditions other than honorable characterization of service.  He completed 3 years, 2 months, and 19 days of net active service this period, of which 10 months and 4 days were credited as foreign service.  He had 16 days of lost time due to AWOL and no valorous personnel decorations.  

7.  He provided page 2 of a VA rating decision showing the VA awarded him a   70 percent (%) disability rating for PTSD, effective 10 December 2011.

8.  He provided a self-authored statement entitled "Stressful Incident No 1," wherein he stated he enlisted in the Army and arrived in Vietnam in September 1970.  He was assigned to Headquarters Battery, 5th Battalion, 4th Artillery Regiment, in Quanq Tri.  In January 1971, he was sent from Fire Support Base (FSB) Charlie 2 (C-2) to Battery C.  In February 1971, Battery C was moved to Khe Sanh to take part in Lamson 719.  Battery C was the back-up for the South Vietnamese Army invading Laos.  (Khe Sanh was also where the U.S. Marines Corps got hit hard in 1968; there was still visible debris from their battle.  He remembers finding a boot that was still covered with blood stains.)  He had to go back to the base camp several times while his unit was in Khe Sanh.  His unit had to do a convoy twice a day, one down and one back, because the road was not wide enough for normal traffic.  The convoy was ambushed on three separate occasions.  He and the other Soldiers on the convoy could hear the gun fire and see where some of the bullets were hitting the ground around them; all they could do was to fire in the direction from which they thought the bullets were coming.  After spending two months in Khe Sanh they returned to FSB C-2.  Once they were settled, they started getting a lot of incoming fire from 122mm rockets; it was an every day event.  They lived underground in bunkers and had small foxholes they could get into.  One day the incoming rounds started.  He and two others ran for their foxhole. They heard the rockets passing overhead.  They heard a loud boom.  The ground shook and everything went black.  The three of them were sitting inches apart but could not see each other.  He is sure the incident only lasted a few seconds but it seemed like forever before things cleared.  Later, when it was safe to get out, they saw a 122mm rocket about a foot from their foxhole.  The rocket hit a foot in front of their foxhole and the back end blew over their foxhole.  Every time he hears a loud boom it takes him back to that day and reminds him how close he came to dying. 

9.  He provided a second self-authored statement entitled "Stressful Incident No 2," wherein he stated the worst day he had in Vietnam was on 21 May 1971, and his unit was getting its daily dose of rockets.  1st Battalion, 61st Infantry Regiment was on C-2 with them and they were side by side on the base.  His unit got a call for help from 1st Battalion, 61st Infantry Regiment because an underground bunker had been hit by a rocket shortly after the incoming started.  (This was early evening.  He is unsure about the time, but indicated the incoming started right around the evening meal.)  The rocket went through the roof and exploded inside the bunker.  They started digging in trying to help the Soldiers that were still alive.  They pulled 29 dead and 33 wounded out of the bunker.  The 33 wounded included injuries from minor cuts and bruises to crushed and mangled limbs.  They also found some body parts.  

	a.  No matter how hard he tries, he cannot forget about that day.  In the past 41 years, hardly a day passes when he has not thought of the deceased Soldiers, and also thought "that could have been me."  He joined the Army with the intention of making it a career; but, once he returned from Vietnam everything changed for him and he had no idea what was going on inside himself.  He could not get along with people.  He did not want anyone around him.  He and his wife separated.  He cut himself off from his family and friends.  It took him years but he seemed to be able to deal with everything by cutting himself off from everyone.  Once he got out of the Army he moved to Dallas, TX, where he did not know anyone.  He got a job, kept to himself, shut down all of his emotions, and would not let anyone get close to him.  

	b.  He grew up in a close family and had lot of friends.  However, for the past 41 years, he can honestly say that he does not have any close relationships, even though he remarried in 1986.  His second wife's father spent 20 years in the Air Force and fought in Korea.  He remembers talking to her father some; but they were never close and he never told her father what he saw while he was in Vietnam.  It was hard for him to be close to his wife's father or anyone else.  He still cannot open up to his wife.  For the past 30 years he has driven a tractor trailer for a living.  His doctor at the VA says that a lot of Vietnam veterans went into truck driving because they were in the truck alone and had to face very few people during the work day.  Life is a struggle and he gets angry thinking about what might have been if things had been different and he had remained in the Army.  He enlisted in the Army, he was not drafted.  When he got orders to go to Vietnam he went without a second thought.  If he had a second chance to do it over again he would still have joined the Army even though the nightmares continue and he still suffers from thoughts and dreams about what took place in Vietnam.

10.  He provided 21 pages of medical progress notes, printed at the Columbia, SC VA Medical Center on 27 May 2015.  These progress notes refer to "Stressful Incident No 1," and states in 1971, at FSB C-2, his unit received incoming rocket attacks daily; he was in a fox hole and feared for his life.  This stressor meets "Criterion A" and is adequate to support the diagnosis of PTSD and is related to the applicant's fear of hostile military or terrorist activity.

	a.  "The diagnostic criteria for PTSD, referred to as Criteria A-F, are from the diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV)."  These criteria were used in the applicant's PTSD diagnosis.  [The bullet points following each criterion listed represent the symptoms with which the applicant presented.]

		(1)  Criterion A - The applicant had been exposed to a traumatic event where both of the following were present:

* he experienced, witnessed or was confronted with an event that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of self or others
* his response involved intense fear, helplessness or horror

		(2)  Criterion B – The traumatic event is persistently re-experienced in 1 or more of the following ways:

* recurrent and distressing recollections of the event, including images, thoughts or perceptions
* recurrent distressing dreams of the event
* intense psychological distress at exposure to internal or external cues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event
* psychological reactivity on exposure to internal or external cues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event

		(3)  Criterion C – Persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with trauma and numbing of general responsiveness (not present before the trauma), as indicated by three or more of the following:

* efforts to avoid thoughts, feelings or conversations associated with the trauma
* efforts to avoid activities, places or people that arouse recollections of the trauma
* feeling of detachment or estrangement from others
* restricted range of effect (e.g., unable to have loving feelings)

		(4)  Criterion D – Persistent feelings of increased arousal, not present before the trauma, as indicated by 2 or more of the following:

* difficulty falling or staying asleep
* irritability or outbursts of anger
* difficulty concentrating
* hypervigilance
* exaggerated startle response

		(5)  Criterion E - indicated that the duration of the applicant's symptoms described above in criteria B, C, and D is more than 1 month.

		(6)  Criterion F – indicated the applicant's PTSD symptoms described above cause him clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.  

	b.  The applicant's PTSD symptoms, for VA rating purposes were listed as:

* chronic sleep impairment
* difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships
* difficulty adapting to stressful circumstances, including work or a work like setting

	c.  The applicant was diagnosed with:

* Axis I – Anxiety disorder:  PTSD, chronic
* Axis II – Current Psychological Stressors:  Other:  Moderate
* Axis V – Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score:  58

11.  Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 establishes policy and provides procedures and guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel found to be unfit or unsuitable for further military service.  Action will be taken to separate an individual for unfitness when it is clearly established that despite attempts to rehabilitate or develop him as a satisfactory Soldier, further effort is unlikely to succeed; or rehabilitation is impracticable or he is not amenable to rehabilitation measures (as indicated by the medical and/or personal history record); or an unfit medical condition is not the direct or substantial contributing cause of his unfitness.  An individual is subject to separation under the provisions of this chapter for unfitness when one or more of the following apply:  frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities; drug abuse; an established pattern for shirking; or an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts.  An individual separated by reason of unfitness at the time would be furnished an undesirable discharge certificate, except that an honorable or general discharge certificate may be issued if the individual has been awarded a personal decoration or if warranted by the particular circumstances in his case.

	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 would have been clearly inappropriate.

	c.  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.  

12.  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." 

13.  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.

14.  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. 

15.  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.  

16.  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.

17.  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?

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


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's discharge proceedings for unfitness were 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.  A review of the applicant's record and the evidence that he provided shows that he was subjected to the ordeals of war while serving in Vietnam.  Of particular note are the instances during which:

* he was attacked on three separate occasions while riding in a convoy in Vietnam
* an 122mm rocket landed and exploded about a foot from a foxhole he was occupying
* after a rocket went through the roof of a bunker in his vicinity he assisted in digging out the various detached body parts, 29 dead, and 33 wounded Soldiers

5.  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. 

6.  His record shows prior to and during his Vietnam service that his conduct and efficiency ratings were all excellent.  His incidents of misconduct began after his tour in Vietnam and include NJP for the minor offenses of being absent from his appointed place of duty, not showing up for extra duty on one occasion, and being AWOL of 16 days.  

7.  His record is void of any serious previous misconduct during this period of service and the misconduct of failing to report and going AWOL appear to have been isolated events that were the result of his lapse in judgment characteristic of Soldiers suffering from PTSD.

8.  Therefore, it is concluded that the presumptive PTSD conditions were a causative factor in the misconduct that led to his UOTHC discharge.  After carefully weighing that fact against the severity of the applicant's misconduct, and his previous honorable discharge and excellent conduct and efficiency ratings, there is sufficient mitigating evidence to warrant upgrading the characterization of the applicant's service to fully honorable.

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 correcting his DD Form 214 for the period ending on 28 September 1973 to show his character of service as honorable.





      ___________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)                                         AR20150005125



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150005125



14


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1