IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 6 December 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150014967 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ___x____ ___x____ ___x____ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 6 December 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150014967 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant amendment of the ABCMR's decision in Docket Number AR20070014013, dated 28 February 2008. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing his DD Form 214 to show the character of his service as general under honorable conditions. 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to upgrading his discharge to fully 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 6 December 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150014967 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 reconsideration of his earlier request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to honorable. 2. The applicant states his request is based on two issues of equity: * post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) greatly contributed to his misconduct while serving in the Army * his misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of his overall character when viewed in light of his post-service conduct 3. The applicant provides: * undated self-authored letter * letter from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) psychologist * clinical notes * VA benefits statement * separation documents * discharge orders, dated 26 October 1971 * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) * service personnel records * employment statements * character-reference letters * credit report * criminal background check * certificates of training and membership CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20070014013 on 28 February 2008. 2. The applicant's contentions and VA documentation are new evidence that was not previously considered by the Board and warrants consideration at this time. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 May 1969 for a period of 3 years. He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63C (general vehicle repairer). 4. On 25 March 1971, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for possessing marijuana. 5. He arrived in Vietnam on 23 May 1971. 6. He was absent without leave (AWOL) from 12 September 1971 to 20 September 1971. He was also charged with uttering a bad check while he was in an AWOL status. His charge sheet is not available for review. 7. On 28 September 1971 after consulting with counsel, he submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. He indicated he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, he might be deprived of many or all Army benefits, he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA, and he might be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws. He also acknowledged he understood he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an undesirable discharge. He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 8. On 19 October 1971, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed his reduction to pay grade E-1 and issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 9. He departed Vietnam on 25 October 1971. 10. On 26 October 1971, he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He completed 2 years, 4 months, and 20 days of total active service with 9 days of lost time. 11. There is no evidence of record showing he was diagnosed with PTSD or any mental health condition prior to his discharge. 12. In 1973, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for a discharge upgrade. In 1976, he was issued a clemency discharge pursuant to Presidential Proclamation Number 4313. In 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board determined he was properly discharged and the Secretary of the Army directed denial of his request for a change in the type and nature of his discharge under the Department of Defense Review Program (Special). 13. On 28 February 2008, the ABCMR denied his request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge. 14. He provided an undated self-authored letter to the Board wherein he stated: a. He became aware of the policy to consider the impact of PTSD on characterization of service through the Hagel memorandum. He has been diagnosed by VA doctors with PTSD due to combat trauma while serving in Vietnam. He was awarded a 50-percent disability rating for PTSD. He has provided medical documentation as evidence that his undiagnosed PTSD greatly contributed to his in-service misconduct and poor decisions, which led to his separation with a discharge UOTHC. b. He is the third generation of his family to have served in the Army. He volunteered to go to Vietnam. He drove trucks and repaired vehicles in an active combat zone. He also performed guard duty and supplied perimeter guards with ammunition. His unit constantly experienced mortar and sniper fire. The enemy infiltrated the camp and blew up the ammunition dump close to his barracks. The explosion threw him out of his bunk to the floor. His stress greatly increased along with enemy activity and the imminent dangers of Vietnam were starkly apparent. Conditions were very stressful. When he received the order to move to Chu Lai, something in him snapped, which he now recognizes as a symptom of PTSD. c. Exercising extremely poor judgment, a group of Soldiers decided not to go directly to Chu Lai. They camped on a beach for 9 days. This was his period of AWOL. During this time, they ran out of money and food. Someone found a checkbook and several of them took turns writing bad checks. He got caught. d. At this point, the Army administratively separated him UOTHC. This entire course of events amounts to the worst mistake of his life. He has regretted it severely for all the years that have since passed. After coming home with all his regrets and guilt, he had significant trouble adjusting to civilian life. He drank excessively to cope with his combat experiences and shame. He was unable to talk to anyone about his experiences or feelings. He thought no one would understand or assist him due to his misconduct. e. He found work in construction and had many dangerous and embarrassing drinking episodes. His life changed due to a severe vehicle accident in which he was nearly killed. His future wife made it clear he had to stop drinking completely or she would be out of his life. He committed to quit drinking. f. In 2003, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. The VA doctors told him his cancer was due to Agent Orange exposure while serving in Vietnam. He was found honorable for VA purposes and eligible for medical and compensation benefits. In 2008, he suffered a severe heart attack and needed triple bypass open heart surgery. This was also related to Agent Orange. g. He was diagnosed with PTSD and awarded 50 percent disability compensation by the VA. h. His post-service life has been spent running a business and raising a family. He has been a responsible and productive citizen. He is a member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Vietnam Veterans of America, and Disabled American Veterans. He has been financially responsible, had a stable family life, and has given back to the community in many ways. He deeply regrets his in-service misconduct. 15. He provided an undated letter from his VA psychologist attesting: * he had seen the applicant for 38 sessions of individual psychotherapy * the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD * his symptoms were monitored weekly and his scores indicate he experiences moderate to severe symptoms of PTSD * his diagnosis of PTSD is directly related to his service in Vietnam * his erratic behaviors that led to his discharge are best explained as related to PTSD 17. He provided VA documentation, dated 30 April 2015, showing he was granted service-connected disability compensation for PTSD with adjustment disorder with anxious mood and alcohol abuse in full remission (50 percent) effective 15 December 2014. 18. He provided VA documentation, dated 24 June 2015, showing his combined service-connected evaluation is 90 percent. 19. He provided a character-reference letter from his wife attesting that he had a drinking problem when she met him in 1975. He had a bad truck accident. He decided he would stop drinking and he did. He has not had a drink for over 38 years. They have been married for 36 years; they have a son and two grandchildren. He has been a good husband, father, and grandfather. He owned and operated a construction company for over 30 years until he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. The VA has been there for him. He is in counseling for PTSD and he attends Alcoholics Anonymous meetings at the VA. He is an honorable man. 20. He provided a character-reference letter from a friend attesting that he has known the applicant since 1967. Upon the applicant's return from Vietnam and discharge from the Army, he outwardly appeared fine, but he seemed to have little direction for the future. Just recently the applicant shared some long-standing negative beliefs about himself stemming from his service in Vietnam. He encouraged the applicant to go to the VA. The applicant is honest, hardworking, and one of the finest people he knows. 21. An advisory opinion was rendered by the Chief, Behavioral Health Division, Office of the Surgeon General, dated 9 September 2016, wherein he stated: a. In 2003, the applicant's service was found to be honorable for VA purposes and he became eligible for medical and compensation benefits. In April 2015, he was awarded 50-percent service-connected disability compensation by the VA for PTSD due to combat trauma while serving in Vietnam. His VA psychologist asserted, as recently as May 2015, that he experiences moderate to severe symptoms of PTSD directly related to his service in Vietnam and the erratic behaviors that led to his discharge are best explained as related to PTSD. b. His poor judgment and reckless behavior in Vietnam, his severe alcohol dependence, and his subsequent diagnosis by the VA suggest he developed PTSD while serving in Vietnam and this mitigated the misconduct that led to his discharge. 22. A copy of this advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment and/or rebuttal. He did not respond. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 10 of the version in effect at the time provided that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after court-martial charges were preferred. Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service. Consulting counsel would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses charged, the type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of Veterans Administration benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge. An Undesirable Discharge Certificate would normally be furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service. b. Paragraph 1-13 provides that the separation authority will direct an immediate reduction to the lowest enlisted grade when a Soldier is to be discharged UOTHC. c. 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. d. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, a general discharge is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 2. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), chapter 7, addresses trauma and stress or related disorders. The DSM is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and provides standard criteria and common language for classification of mental disorders. In 1980, the APA added post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to the third edition of its DSM nosologic classification scheme. Although controversial when first introduced, the PTSD diagnosis has filled an important gap in psychiatric theory and practice. From a 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." 3. 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. 4. The fifth edition of the DSM 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 criterion 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; or (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, or (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 or (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); and (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; and (6) sleep disturbance. f. Criterion F – Duration: Persistence of symptoms (in Criteria B, C, D, and E) for more than 1 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. 5. 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 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 Soldiers' 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 a 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. 6. On 3 September 2014, in view of the foregoing information, 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. 7. 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? 8. Although 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 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 UOTHC 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 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. 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. The applicant's voluntary request for separation for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, was administratively correct and conformed with applicable regulations. 2. At the time of his 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. The applicant contends PTSD contributed to his misconduct while serving in the Army and that he was diagnosed by VA doctors with PTSD due to combat trauma in Vietnam. He provided a letter from his VA psychologist stating his diagnosis of PTSD is directly related to his service in Vietnam. It is reasonable to believe his PTSD condition existed at the time of his discharge and may be considered likely a mitigating factor in his misconduct. 5. In addition, the advisory official states the applicant's poor judgment and reckless behavior in Vietnam, his severe alcohol dependence, and his subsequent diagnosis by the VA suggest he developed PTSD while serving in Vietnam and this mitigated the misconduct that led to his discharge. 6. 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. 7. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, a general discharge is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150014967 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150014967 12 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2