DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ARMY REVIEW BOARDS AGENCY 251 18TH STREET SOUTH, SUITE 385 ARLINGTON, VA 22202-3531 SAMR-RB 1 September 2016 MEMORANDUM FOR Case Management Division, US Army Review Boards Agency, 251 18th Street South, Suite 385, Arlington, VA 22202-3531 SUBJECT: Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings AR20150001263 1. Reference the attached Army Board for Correction of Military Records of Proceedings, dated 30 June 2016, in which the Board members unanimously recommended denial of the applicant's request. 2. I have reviewed the findings, conclusions, and Board member recommendations. I find there is sufficient evidence to grant partial relief. Therefore, under the authority of Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, I direct that all Department of the Army Records of the individual concerned be corrected by amending his DD Form 214, item 23a for the period ending 1o February 1972, to show military occupational specialty 51 H40 (Construction Forman), and to show the narrative reason for his separation as "Secretarial Authority" with the appropriate SPD code. The characterization of service remains honorable. 3. Request necessary administrative action be taken to effect the correction of records as indicated no later than 30 December 2016. Further, request that the individual concerned and counsel, if any, as well as any Members of Congress who have shown interest be advised of the correction and that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records be furnished a copy of the correspondence. BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: Encl - Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 30 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150001263 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x____ ___x____ ___x____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 30 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150001263 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 30 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150001263 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, in effect: a. A DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the period ending 10 February 1972, item 23a (Specialty Number and Title) to show his military occupational specialty (MOS) as 51H40 (Construction Foreman) vice 51H20 (Construction Foreman). b. A DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 15 September 1975, item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) to show ?for breach of contract and no treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).? 2. The applicant states the 1972 DD Form 214 shows MOS 51H20, this is an error and the MOS code does not exist. The MOS 51H40 was awarded to him on 17 April 1970 and maintained throughout to include during his service in Vietnam where the title was changed to Construction Inspector Advisor; and contends that: a. The error was a direct result of his second discharge being under the expeditious discharge program (EDP) for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention. When enlisting for his second period of service the Army used his DD Form 214 to determine his MOS, giving him MOS 51H20 on his second enlistment contract; and b. In 1974, the Army did not acknowledge PTSD. The company clerk could not correct his MOS, so the Army threw him into another MOS close to his military skills. The Army did not allow him to work in his trained MOS or receive treatment for his PTSD symptoms, a medical condition that was a direct result of his service in Vietnam. He continued to drink and was unable to perform his duties due to the lack of MOS training and his PTSD condition. The Army was wrong to enlist him in MOS 51H20, it did not exist and his separation should be for a breach of contract and failure to provide medical treatment for PTSD. 3. The applicant provides his DD Forms 214, a DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record), and the first page of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rating decision. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, United States 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. On 7 July 1969 the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army. 3. A DA Form 3286-5 (Statements for Enlistment), states he enlisted for Army Career Group 51 (Construction and Utilities), dated 7 July 1969. 4. A DA Form 20 shows: a. Item 22 (MOS): 51H40 (Construction Engineering Supervisor), dated 12 April 1970 b. Item 27 (Military Education): (1) Carpenter, 51B20, 8 weeks, date: 1969 (2) Construction Foreman, 51H40, 18 weeks, date: 1970 c. Item 31 (Foreign Service) shows he served in the U.S. Army Pacific (USARPAC) - Vietnam from 27 June 1970 to 7 February 1972. d. Item 33 (Appointments and Reductions) shows he was promoted to corporal/E-4 on 30 November 1969 and promoted to sergeant/E-5 on 17 April 1970. e. Item 38 (Record of Assignments) shows he held the following assignments: (1) 09B, Basic Combat Training, 14 July 1969 to 12 September 1969. (2) 51B20, Advanced Individual Training, 13 September 1969 to 21 November 1969. (3) 51H40, Skill Developmental Course, 22 November 1969 to 29 June 1969. (4) 51H40, Construction Inspector, 30 June 1969 to 14 January 1972. (5) 51H40, Construction Foreman, 15 January 1972 to the time he transitioned from the service. 5. On 10 February 1972 he was honorably released and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR). His DD Form 214, item 23a, shows the entry MOS 51H20, Construction Foreman. 6. The applicant had a break in service. On 24 July 1974 he enlisted in the Regular Army. a. A DD Form 4 (Enlistment Contract Armed Forces of the United States), item 48, dated 24 July 1974, shows the applicant ?Enlisted for [Continental United States (CONUS)] Station of Choice Enlistment Option, (Table 5-45) F[ort] Lewis, WA, MOS 51H20 CONSTRUCTION FOREMAN.? b. A DA Form 3286-52-R, (Statements of Enlistment, Part VI, CONUS Station of Choice Enlistment Option), signed and dated 24 July 1974, shows he acknowledged and understood that: (1) He is a prior service enlistee who is not required to undergo advanced individual training and he will be assigned to Fort Lewis, WA, provided he met the pre-requisites; and (2) In the event the unit or activity to which he is assigned or attached under the provisions of this option is deployed, relocated, inactivated, disbanded, discontinued, reorganized, or redesignated prior to the expiration of the guaranteed minimum period of assignment to the unit, activity, or installation of choice he will remain assigned or be assigned in accordance with his preferences. If the foregoing is not possible or does not fill Army requirements, the needs of the Army will determine if he will remain assigned or be reassigned. 7. Special Orders Number 151, issued by Armed Forces Examining and Entrance Station, Kansas City, MO, dated 24 July 1974, assigned the applicant to Fort Lewis, WA. His MOS is shown as 51H20 in the grade of E-4. 8. Special Orders Number 85, issued by Headquarters, 9th Infantry Division and Fort Lewis, WA, dated 26 March 1975, withdrew primary MOS code 51H20 and awarded primary MOS code 51B20 in accordance with Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System), paragraph 2-31. 9. A DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), dated 9 April 1975, shows the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 2 April 1975 to 7 April 1975. 10. Special Orders Number 162, issued by Headquarters, 9th Infantry Division and Fort Lewis, WA, dated 11 June 1975, awarded secondary MOS code 62L20 (Wheeled Tractor Operator), effective 6 June 1975. 11. A DA Form 2627, dated 21 July 1975, shows the applicant received NJP for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 17 July 1975. 12. A DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form), dated 29 July 1975, shows: a. He requested an immediate discharge on the basis that the Army did not fulfill his enlistment contract, and stated: (1) On 24 July 1974, he enlisted under the CONUS choice of station enlistment option for Fort Lewis, WA, for MOS 51H20, Construction Foreman, as written in his enlistment contract. According to Army Regulation 611-201 (Military Occupational Classification and Structure), there is no MOS 51H20, only MOS 51H40. (2) He has tried to work it out and even performed on-the-job-training in other MOSs, but with no real job satisfaction. He feels it is in his best interest and the Army’s that he be discharged. b. The commander endorsed it and requested appropriate consideration, stating that the applicant shows no desire to serve in the military; he has prior service and since his arrival has had two Article15’s, one driving while under the influence incident, and his attitude is poor. 13. DA Form 4126-R (Bar to Enlistment/Reenlistment Certificate), dated 29 July 1975, was approved based on his NJP, his negative attitude towards the military, his lack of motivation, and lack of desire to be a good Soldier. 14. On 29 August 1975, the applicant’s request for discharge due to an unfulfilled enlistment contract was not favorably considered by higher authority. The decision was based on the Soldier’s statement, stating that he did, in fact, waive his enlistment contract for on-the-job training for MOS code 62L20. The Soldier is now assigned to a position as a 62L20 and is receiving training in that MOS. 15. On 3 September 1975, the commander notified him that discharge action was being initiated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 5-37, Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP); the notification stated: a. The reasons for the proposed action were that the applicant showed very little interest in his military duties and responsibilities. He received two Article 15s, was not dependable at work, his personal appearance was sub-standard, he lacked responsibility, and had a very poor attitude toward the Army. He had many problems outside the military, which detracted from his ability to perform his assigned military duties. (No details were provided to define his personal problems outside the Army.) (1) He recommended an expeditious discharge and the issuance of a General Discharge (GD) Certificate. (2) He had the right to decline the discharge. If he declined the discharge and his subsequent conduct indicated such action was warranted, he may be subject to disciplinary or administrative separation procedures under applicable regulations. He had the right to submit a statement in his own behalf and was to complete the attached endorsement within two duty days. b. On 5 September 1975, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of his proposed discharge action and voluntarily consented to the discharge. He did not submit any statements in his own behalf. The commanding officer recommended approval of the separation action, and noted eight separate counseling’s and the NJP’s. c. On 10 September 1975, the separation authority approved the separation action and directed the issuance of a GD Certificate and on 15 September 1975, the applicant was discharged accordingly. A DD Form 214 was issued showing he received a GD Certificate. His available military records do not indicate he was diagnosed with any mental health conditions while he was serving on active duty during his first or second enlistment. 16. On 1 December 1981, the ADRB determined that he had been properly separated under the provisions of the EDP. However, they believed that the applicant was wrongly assigned an MOS because the MOS he enlisted under was not available; therefore, he was assigned to a position with lesser duties. The ADRB believed he had not been treated in a proper manner in regards to the fulfillment of his enlistment option. They upgraded his characterization of service to honorable. 17. His 1975 DD Form 214 was voided and a new DD Form 214 was issued that shows: a. Item 18 (Remarks) – ?DISCHARGE UPGRADED ON 6 NOV 81 FOLLOWING APPLICATION OF 13 NOV 80? [Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) decision, dated 1 December 1981]. b. Item 24 (Characterization of Service) – ?HONORABLE.? c. Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) he was separated due to a ?EXPEDITIOUS DISCHARGE PROGRAM (EDP) FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ACCEPTABLE STANDARDS FOR RETENTION.? 18. The applicant provides a copy of the first page of his VA rating decision letter, dated 6 February 2015, showing a disability rating of 100 percent for PTSD effective 5 November 1987. 19. An advisory opinion from the Office of the Surgeon General (OTSG), dated 2 June 2016, recommends disapproval of the applicant’s request, stating: a. The applicant received an honorable discharge on 15 September 1975 and is requesting that the Board correct his record to reflect that his expeditious discharge from the Army was due to untreated PTSD. There are no medical records available for review. The only document that mentions PTSD is a VA rating decision letter dated 6 February 2015 that states his compensation for PTSD was increased to 100 percent effective 5 November 1987; and b. Without medical records or other service documents indicating exposure to trauma, an advisory opinion about whether or not the applicant met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-5 criteria for PTSD during his time in service cannot be rendered. c. The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion for an opportunity to respond. On 14 June 2016, he responded and stated: (1) He was awarded 51H40 during his first enlistment. The 1972 DD Form 214 is incorrect and has MOS 51B20, which is nonexistent, and led to much confusion during his second enlistment. (2) The Army waived his time-in-grade and time-in-service requirements. To clarify, the MOS code 51H40 is equivalent to sergeant first class/E-7 pay grade and requires a certain amount of years of service and time in the lower grade of staff sergeant/E-6. The Army promoted him to an E-5 pay grade, MOS 51H40 and gave him orders to Vietnam as a construction foreman after only 1 year of total active duty. (He had the requisite military training for construction foreman.) (3) He enlisted after a break in service in MOS code 51H40, but the Army gave him 51H20, this was fraudulent because the MOS code was nonexistent. During the next year, the Army refused to place him in the proper MOS of 51H40 because of his pay grade, time-in-service and time-in-grade, all the things the Army was able to waive during his first enlistment. The Army resolved it by forcing him to accept a discharge under failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention. It is impossible to maintain standards in a job that is nonexistent. (4) His PTSD contributed to his expeditious discharge during his second enlistment and is verified by the VA. The VA made a PTSD diagnosis based upon trauma in Vietnam that occurred during his tour in Vietnam from June 1970 until his discharge in 1972; therefore, PTSD would have been present during his second enlistment. The OTSG distorted many of the facts. His first discharge does not reflect MOS 51B20, but the fictitious MOS 51H20. There is no mention of PTSD in his records since the diagnosis of PTSD did not exist back then; however, his military records indicate exposure to trauma. REFERENCES: 1. The DSM fifth revision (DSM-5) 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. 2. Title 38, U.S. Code, provides for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to make a determination and award compensation for disabilities incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 3. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, governed the preparation of the DD Form 214. It stated that the DD Form 214 is a synopsis of the Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty service. It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active Army service at the time of release from active duty, retirement or discharge. In pertinent part, it directs that the primary MOS code number and title be entered in item 23a on the DD Form 214. 4. Army Regulation 611-201 (Personnel Selection and Classification – Enlisted Career Management Fields and MOS), and historical documents in effect at the time of the first period of service provides: a. Military occupational specialty is a term used to identify groupings of duty positions possessing such close occupational or functional relationships that an optimal degree of interchangeability, among persons so classified exists at any given level of skill. They are used by unit commanders and higher echelon staff planning agencies to meet the needs for both broad and precise classifications, an occupational code has been incorporated into the MOS structure, each digit has a specific meaning. b. The MOS code consists of five basic characters. The first three characters identify the position, the fourth character indicates the skill level, and the fifth character identifies special qualifications. c. The fourth digit, with exception of a chaplain’s assistant, in combination with the preceding three digits indicates the various specialist and noncommissioned officer skill levels within an MOS. Digits “1” through “5” identify specialist levels. Digits “6” through “9” identify noncommissioned officer or supervisor levels: (1) Skill level 1, basic (E-1 through E-3); (2) Skill level 2, specialist (E-4); (3) Skill level 3, team leader, specialist (E-5); (4) Skill level 4, noncommissioned officer (E-5 through E-7); and (5) Skill level 5, senior noncommissioned officer (E-8 and E-9). 5. Army Regulation 611-201 (Personnel Selection and Classification – Enlisted Career Management Fields and MOS), in effect at the time of the second enlistment period, provides. a. MOS 51H, Construction Foreman, was authorized for skill levels 4 and 5, applicable to authorized enlisted grades E-6 through E-9. b. The fourth digit in the MOS code indicated the skill level and identified a type and degree of skill that represents the extent of qualification within the total MOS. Basically, the skill level separates supervisory from non-supervisory skills and indicates the level of qualification within each. They are identified by characters ?1? through ?5?: (1) Skill level 1, identifies helper or entry level; (2) Skill level 2, identifies positions requiring performance of difficult task under general supervision; (3) Skill level 3, identifies positions requiring performance tasks that are significantly different from, and in addition to, tasks performed at skill level 2; (4) Skill level 4, identifies first line supervisors; and (5) Skill level 5, identifies higher level, managerial-type supervisory positions. c. Change 8 of this regulation re-established the guidelines for the skill level identifiers; stating that unlike the current system, there is a direct relationship between grade and skill level without regard to nonsupervisory or supervisory skill. (1) Skill level 1, identifies positions in authorized grades E-3 and E-4; (2) Skill level 2, identifies positions authorized in grade E-5; (3) Skill level 3, identifies positions authorized in grade E-6; (4) Skill level 4, identifies positions authorized in grade E-7; and (5) Skill level 5, identifies positions authorized in grades E8 and E-9. 6. AR 601-210, in effect at that time of his second enlistment, provides a table identifying the authorized enlistment options, and states: a. Applicants who enlist for Army Station of Choice Enlistment Option with prior service in any of the Armed Forces enlisting in pay grade E-4 or below may be retained in a skill required at the installation. b. Individuals who enlist for this option who fail to meet any of the established prerequisites or otherwise become disqualified for training or duty in the initial MOS selected by the Army, the enlistee will be trained in accordance with the needs of the Army and be required to complete the term of service for which enlisted. 7. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time of the second period of service, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel and provided that: a. Members who had completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of continuous active service on their first enlistment and who had demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential may be discharged under the EDP. The expeditious elimination of substandard, nonproductive Soldiers before board or punitive action became necessary. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions if an individual's military record was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge b. Claims of unfulfilled enlistment commitments or erroneous enlistment commitments are processed in accordance with AR 601-210, paragraph 5-5 and AR 601-280, paragraph 1-26 as applicable. When it appears to the commander that an enlistment commitment was either erroneous or cannot be fulfilled, all pertinent facts will be submitted to Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) for determination. 8. On 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service. 9. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The regulation provides that ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. DISCUSSION: 1. That applicant contends the DD Form 214 from his first period of service should reflect MOS 51H40, Construction Inspector Advisor; in a reply to an advisory he states the Army waived his time-in-service and time-in-grade requirements and awarded him MOS 51H40 during his first enlistment, further clarifying that MOS 51H40 is commensurate to pay grade E-7. a. It appears the Army made an entry error in item 23a on DD Form 214 with an effective separation date of 10 February 1972. His records show MOS 51H40 on 12 April 1970 and continued assignment as a 51H40, construction foreman until he transitioned from the service. There is no indication in his records or available references that the position title was ?Construction Inspector Advisor?. b. There is no record of an approved time-in-grade and/or time-in-service waiver; however, there were several changes to the way the skill level was identified in the MOS code over the time periods during his first and second enlistment periods. The skill level identified in MOS 51H40 on 12 April 1970 was correct and in accordance with applicable guidelines in effect at that time. MOS code 51H40 is commensurate to pay grade E-7; however, the established change became effective after he separated from service for the second time. 2. In December 1981, he applied to the ADRB, requesting an upgrade to his discharge. The board determined that the applicant had been properly separated under the provisions of the EDP; however, they also note that he was wrongfully assigned, upon assignment to Fort Lewis, WA; the MOS for which he enlisted because it was not available at that specific installation. According to the applicant this led to his disillusionment with the Army and eventually his record of indiscipline. The ADRB was under the opinion the applicant had not been treated properly in regards to the fulfillment of his contract and granted him an honorable discharge. 3. He contends that the incorrect MOS entry of 51H20 from his first period of service is the direct result of the Army enlisting him under a fraudulent MOS during his second enlistment. The applicant states his reason for separation should be for breach of contract with no medical treatment for his PTSD conditions. The Army was unable to assign him to a valid position; they could not correct his MOS and reassigned him into another MOS closer to his military skills with a requirement for on-the-job training. This mistreatment (breach of contract) forced him to accept a discharge for failure to maintain acceptable standards of conduct. a. The ADRB notes that he was misaligned and upon assignment to Fort Lewis, WA, the MOS for which he enlisted for was not available. The record and supporting references indicate his enlistment contract was fulfilled and the commander took more action than required under AR 601-210. Each Soldier ultimately serves based on the needs of the Army. (1) After a break in service on 24 July 1974, he enlisted for a CONUS station of choice enlistment option for Fort Lewis, WA. Records contain a signed statement of understanding where he acknowledges that he is a prior service applicant who did not require advanced individual training and the needs of the Army takes precedence should extenuating circumstances occur upon reporting to his new duty station. The contract he enlisted under was for CONUS station of choice. The Army fulfilled its contract when he reported to Fort Lewis, WA, in accordance with AR 601-210 and Special Orders Number 151. (2) MOS 51H was an authorized MOS, the skill level associated with the MOS code character of ?2?, was no longer authorized at the time of his first period of service. Records indicate that although MOS code 51H20 was no longer an authorized skill level, the commander acted appropriately in accordance with AR 601-210 and on two separate occasions provided orders for a primary and secondary military occupational specialty. (a) Special Orders Number 85 awarded a primary MOS code of 51B20. The applicant was trained and awarded this skill during his first period of enlistment; and (b) Special Orders Number 162 awarded a secondary MOS code of 62L20, a skill he received through on-the-job training during his second enlistment period; (c) On 29 July 1975, the applicant requested immediate separation from the Army due to the Army failing to fulfill his enlistment contract for his MOS. The U.S. Army Military Personnel Center did not approve it; pointing out that the applicant signed a statement confirming the commander verified and placed him in a valid position on more than one occasion. He did not meet the criteria to be separated for an unfulfilled contract. 4. On 3 September 1975, the commander initiated action to discharge him for failure to maintain acceptable conduct standards based on his sub-standard appearance, lack of responsibility, a very poor attitude towards the Army, and two NJP’s. a. The applicant voluntarily consented to the expeditious discharge due to his failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention, and chose not to submit any statements in his own behalf. He received a GD Certificate. b. His separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no evidence of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. The type of discharge directed and the reason for separation were appropriate and commensurate with his military record. c. The ADRB upgraded his discharge to honorable in 1981. They did not change is reason for discharge. A new DD Form 214 was issued based on the Board’s decision. 5. The concern of PTSD is not in question. The advisory states there are no medical records available for review and the record provided by the board hinders the ability to render a medical opinion. The available records do not support his contention that his undiagnosed condition was the proximate cause of his misconduct. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150001263 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150001263 14 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2