IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015208 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: 5 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015208 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: 5 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015208 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests upgrade of her deceased husband's under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. 2. The applicant states that her deceased husband, a former service member (FSM), served in the Republic of Vietnam with the 25th Infantry Division and voluntarily extended his tour of duty. After he returned home he was not the same person. She acknowledges that she does not know all the details of his discharge. She does know that he was granted leave when their son was born, he received an approved extension of his leave, and he was charged with being absent without leave (AWOL) when he returned to his unit. She adds that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 3. The applicant provides a copy of the FSM's death certificate that shows, in pertinent part, he was married to applicant and he died on 7 March 2003. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The FSM enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 January 1965 for a period of 3 years. Upon completion of training he was awarded military occupational specialty 76X (Subsistence Storage Specialist). 2. He was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 25th Supply and Transportation Battalion, Hawaii, on 28 June 1965. 3. On 21 July 1965, the FSM was convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) of being AWOL from 17 May 1965 to 14 June 1965. He was sentenced to forfeiture of $25.00 pay per month for 4 months and to perform hard labor for 2 months. The sentence was approved on 22 July 1965. On 2 August 1965, the SPCM convening authority (SPCMCA) suspended the unexecuted portion of the sentence pertaining to forfeiture of pay until 28 October 1965, unless sooner vacated. 4. The FSM deployed with his unit to Vietnam on 17 March 1966 where he served as a subsistence storage specialist through 29 October 1966. 5. On 29 August 1967, the applicant was convicted by an SPCM of being AWOL from 29 July 1967 to 15 August 1967. He was sentenced to forfeiture of $59.33 pay per month for 5 months, confinement at hard labor for 5 months, and reduction to pay grade E-1. The sentence was approved on 30 August 1967. a. Effective 18 October 1967, the SPCMCA suspended the unexecuted portion of the sentence pertaining to confinement at hard labor for 123 days, unless sooner vacated. b. The FSM was AWOL from 8 November 1967 through 13 November 1967. c. On 16 November 1967, the SPCMCA vacated the suspended portion of the FSM's punishment and he was returned to confinement. 6. On 25 April 1968, the FSM was convicted by an SPCM of being AWOL from 25 March 1968 to 5 April 1968. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months. The sentence was approved on 1 May 1968. 7. On 16 May 1968, the FSM underwent a mental status evaluation by a psychiatrist at the Mental Hygiene Consultation Service, Fort Gordon, GA. The psychiatrist found no evidence of any mental condition which would warrant consideration for treatment, hospitalization, or other disposition via medical channels of the FSM. He also found the FSM had sufficient mental capacity to understand and participate in administrative procedures deemed necessary by command. He recommended the FSM be administratively separated. 8. On 28 May 1968, the FSM's commander notified him of his intention to administratively separate the FSM from the service for unfitness under the provisions of (UP) Army Regulation (AR) 635-212 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unfitness and Unsuitability) based on a pattern of AWOL. The FSM was advised of his right to be represented by counsel, to present his case before a board of officers, and to submit statements in his own behalf. 9. The chain of command recommended approval of the separation action and that the FSM be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 10. On 1 July 1968, the separation authority approved the FSM's separation action and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 11. On 2 July 1968, the FSM was discharged UP AR 635-212 with a UOTHC characterization of service. He had completed 2 years, 8 months, and 28 days of creditable active service and he had 246 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement. 12. A review of the FSM's available military personnel records failed to reveal evidence that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 13. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the medical staff of the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA), dated 21 October 2016. a. The ARBA staff psychiatrist stated the applicant is applying for upgrade of the FSM's discharge because she believes he suffered from combat-related PTSD. The staff psychiatrist's review considered the FSM's military personnel and medical records. She noted there is no documentation of PTSD in the FSM's military records. b. She also noted the FSM was seen by a psychiatrist on 19 March 1965 (prior to deploying to Vietnam) after making a suicide gesture. The psychiatrist who examined the FSM diagnosed him with adjustment reaction of adolescence, chronic, moderate and indicated it was "manifested by poor adjustment to social stress, emotional lability, suicide gesture." The psychiatrist cleared the FSM to return to duty. c. The FSM was evaluated by Behavioral Health (BH) for a second time on 14 May 1968. The psychiatrist found no evidence of any mental condition which would warrant consideration for treatment, hospitalization, or other disposition via medical channels. He was cleared to participate in administrative proceedings. d. The ARBA staff psychiatrist's review of the FSM's military records revealed no clear-cut symptoms of PTSD. Common behaviors which might indicate the presence of PTSD include, in pertinent part, avoidant behaviors (such as AWOL). However, in the FSM's case, he went AWOL before going to Vietnam and before he encountered any combat. As such, it cannot be used as behavioral indicator of PTSD. e. The ARBA staff psychiatrist opined that there is insufficient evidence to establish the existence of PTSD or any other boardable BH condition during the FSM's period of military service. 14. On 21 October 2016, the applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion to allow her the opportunity (30 days) to submit comments or a rebuttal. A response was not received from the applicant. REFERENCES: 1. 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." 2. 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. 3. 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, along with 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. 4. 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 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. 5. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged UOTHC and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service. 6. 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? 7. 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 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. 8. AR 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. It provided, in pertinent part, that members who established a pattern of shirking or who were involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and/or military authorities, were subject to separation for unfitness. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate. 9. AR 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 3, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. b. Chapter 3, paragraph 3-7b, provides that an under honorable conditions discharge is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory, but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends, in effect, that the FSM's UOTHC discharge should be upgraded because he suffered from PTSD. 2. The FSM's discharge UP AR 635-212 for unfitness based on a pattern of AWOL was administratively correct. All requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the FSM were fully protected throughout the separation process. This included a mental status evaluation by a psychiatrist who found no evidence of a mental condition warranting separation based on an unfitting mental health condition. He found the FSM mentally responsible for his actions. 3. The evidence of record shows that during the period of service under review the FSM was convicted by three special courts-martial (one prior to his service in Vietnam and two after having served in Vietnam) and all of the convictions were a result of the FSM having been AWOL. The characterization of his service was considered appropriate for the type of discharge he received. 4. The ARBA staff psychiatrist found the FSM's pattern of AWOL cannot be used as behavioral indicator of PTSD. Her review of the FSM's military records revealed no clear-cut symptoms of PTSD. She opined that there is insufficient evidence to establish the existence of PTSD during his period of military service. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150015208 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150015208 7 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2