BOARD DATE: 23 August 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150011906 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 BOARD DATE: 23 August 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150011906 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. BOARD DATE: 23 August 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150011906 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 under other than honorable conditions to honorable or general under honorable conditions. 2. The applicant states: a. He served in the Army from 1968 until 1974. b.  He served honorably in Vietnam, but he had extreme difficulties in adjusting after Vietnam due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). c.  He served as an infantryman with the 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam for 1 year. d.  He was suffering from PTSD after serving in Vietnam and was absent without leave (AWOL) for a long period. He went home to Red Lake, MN, to be with members of his tribal family at his reservation as he thought this would help him. He did not ever want to go back to Vietnam. e.  He still suffers from PTSD and hopes to get help from the local Department of Veterans Affairs. His behavior, though wrong, was a direct result of what he experienced in combat and he lives with this even today. 3. The applicant provides: * self-authored statement * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) 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 into the Army of the United States on 26 February 1968. 3. Headquarters, Troop Command, U.S. Army Garrison, Special Court-Martial Order Number 145, dated 10 February 1969, shows he pled and was found guilty of being AWOL from on or about 14 July 1968 until on or about 7 January 1969. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 5 months and forfeiture of $46.00 per month for 3 months. 4. On 9 April 1969, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being AWOL on or about 30 March 1969 until on or about 8 April 1969. 5. He served in Vietnam from 11 April 1969 to 10 April 1970. 6. On 16 May 1970, his duty status changed from present for duty to AWOL. On 6 July 1970, he was dropped from the unit rolls. 7. On 16 January 1974, he returned to military control. 8. On 22 January 1974, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial after consulting with counsel who advised him of the basis for his contemplated trial by court-martial; the effects of requesting discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10; and the rights available to him. 9. In his request for discharge, he acknowledged: * he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions * he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits and he would be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs as a result of such a discharge * he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under Federal and State laws * he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of a discharge under other than honorable conditions 10. In conjunction with his request for discharge, he provided a statement wherein he indicated: * he believed he should be discharged because he would be AWOL again * he had a family at home to take care of and his family needed him * he needed to be home for the good of his children 11. On 22 January 1974, he underwent a separation physical and he was found qualified for separation. He had no defects or diagnoses. 12. On 28 January 1974, his immediate commander recommended approval of his request and the issuance of an undesirable discharge. The commander further stated the applicant had demonstrated to his immediate supervisor that he was unwilling to adjust to military service and that any further disciplinary or rehabilitative action would be futile. 13. On 28 January 1974, his battalion commander recommended approval of his request and issuance of an undesirable discharge. He further stated the applicant would never be a productive Soldier in his opinion. 14. On 30 January 1974, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge, directed the issuance of an undesirable discharge, and directed his reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. 15. On 1 February 1974, he was discharged accordingly. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 1 year, 6 months, and 28 days of total active service. 16. On 25 February 2016, the Army Review Boards Agency Case Management Division sent the applicant a request for medical documentation supporting his PTSD diagnosis. He was given until 25 May 2016 to respond. He did not respond. 17. There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 18. His records are void of and he failed to provide any evidence showing he was ever diagnosed with PTSD or any other mental health condition. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a.  Chapter 10, in effect at the time, provided that a member who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request could be submitted at any time after charges had been preferred and must have included the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate. b.  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.  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. 2. 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 applicants' service. 3. 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. 4. Although the Department of Defense 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 records 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 under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. BCM/NRs will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 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. BCM/NRs 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: 1. Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. After consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights, he voluntarily, willingly, and in writing requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. 2. All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. 3. His records are void of and he failed to provide any evidence showing he was ever diagnosed with PTSD or any other mental health condition. 4. The ABCMR does not amend and/or correct military records solely for the purpose of making an applicant eligible for benefits. Each case is individually considered based on the evidence of record and the evidence presented. 5. In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150011906 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150011906 6 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2