IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015421 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: 12 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015421 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: 12 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015421 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 his general, under honorable conditions discharge based on a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 2. The applicant states he served proudly in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War. He has been diagnosed with PTSD. His discharge was unjust because his PTSD was not diagnosed during the period of his military service. 3. The applicant provided copies of a: * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States) * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rating decision CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 20 August 1968 for a period of 3 years. a. Upon completion of training he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 16F (Light Air Defense Artillery Crewman). b. He served in Vietnam from 2 May 1969 to 9 November 1970. c. He was promoted to sergeant (E-5) on 13 July 1970. 2. A DD Form 214 shows the applicant entered active duty this period on 20 August 1968 and was honorably discharged on 3 January 1971 to reenlist in the RA. He had completed 2 years, 4 months, and 14 days of net active service during this period that included 1 year, 6 months, and 7 days of foreign service. 3. The applicant reenlisted in the RA on 4 January 1971 for a period of 4 years. 4. The applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP), as follows: * on 3 May 1971, for absenting himself from his unit from 28 April to 30 April 1971 * on 7 June 1971, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty on 1 June 1971 5. On 12 April 1972, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 86, for being absent without authority from 22 November 1971 to 24 March 1972 6. A DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), completed by a military physician on 19 April 1972, shows the applicant was found: * to be fully alert and oriented * his mood level, thinking process clear, thought content normal, memory good, and mentally responsible for his behavior * to have no mental illness * to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings 7. On 27 April 1972, the applicant consulted with legal counsel. He was informed of the charges against him for violating the UCMJ and that he was pending trial by court-martial. He was advised of the rights available to him and of the option to request discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. a. He voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. By submitting his request for discharge he acknowledged that he was guilty of the charge against him or of a lesser included offense(s) therein contained, which also authorized the imposition of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate (UDC). The applicant's request for discharge states he was not subjected to coercion with respect to his request for discharge. b. He was advised that he might be: * deprived of many or all Army benefits * ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA * deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws c. He acknowledged he understood that, if his request for discharge was accepted, he might be discharged with a UDC. d. He was also advised that he could submit statements in his own behalf. He elected not to submit any statements in his own behalf. e. The applicant and his counsel placed their signatures on the document. 8. The chain of command recommended approval of the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service with a UDC. On 3 May and 9 May 1972, the applicant was interviewed by the Commander, U.S. Army Personnel Control Facility, and then the Commander, Headquarters Command, XVIII Airborne Corps, Fort Bragg, NC. The commanders documented that the applicant stated, in pertinent part, his AWOL was caused by marital and personal problems, and the applicant's wife was threatening to leave him if he did not get out of the Army. 9. On 18 May 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service, reduced him to the lowest enlisted grade, and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate. 10. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he entered active duty this period on 4 January 1971 and he was discharged on 25 May 1972 under the provisions of (UP) Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial with an under honorable conditions characterization of service. He had completed 1 year and 15 days of net active service during this period. Item 26a (Non-Pay Periods Time Lost) shows he had 125 days of time lost under Title 10, U.S. Code, section 972, from 22 November 1971 through 23 March 1972. 11. A review of the applicant's military personnel records failed to reveal evidence that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 12. On 13 August 1997, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) denied the applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge. 13. In support of his application the applicant provides a copy of Winston-Salem VA Regional Office, Winston-Salem, NC, letter, dated 30 May 2013, with enclosures, that show, in pertinent part, the applicant was granted service connection for PTSD on 21 June 1989 with a disability rating of 30 percent (%). The documents also show his service connected condition of PTSD with major depression was rated 100% by the VA, effective 5 March 2012. 14. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the medical staff of the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA), dated 3 November 2016. a. The ARBA staff psychiatrist stated the applicant is now applying for upgrade of his discharge contending that he did not know he was suffering from PTSD and that it played a part in his early separation from the Army. Her review considered the applicant's application and military personnel records provided by the ABCMR. The Department of Defense (DoD) electronic medical record was not in use at the time of the applicant's service. b. She noted the VA found the applicant to be 100% service-connected for PTSD, effective 5 March 2012. However, there was no documentation regarding the basis of the PTSD diagnosis, the severity of symptoms, impact on functioning, or that the applicant received continued treatment through the VA. c. The staff psychiatrist noted, "Based on thorough review of available medical records, there is no evidence [applicant] met criteria for a mental health condition during his military service. [Applicant's] record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning events that could have contributed to PTSD or another mental health service connected diagnosis leading to his discharge from the Army. This observation does not negate [applicant's] post-service diagnosis of PTSD from the VA; however, the VA conducts evaluations based on different standards and regulations." d. She concluded, "He was medically and psychiatrically cleared prior to separation from the Army and in his voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of court-martial, he acknowledged understanding the implications involved in receipt of an undesirable discharge. Overall, there is no evidence that [applicant's] post-service diagnosis of PTSD mitigated his misconduct or would support a change to the character or reason for the discharge." 15. On 4 November 2016, the applicant was provided a copy of the ARBA advisory opinion to allow him 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 DoD acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions (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. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 10 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, type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of VA 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 an individual who was discharged for the good of the Service. b. 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. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends, in effect, that his under honorable conditions discharge should be upgraded based on a post-service diagnosis of PTSD. 2. Records show the applicant served on active duty from 20 August 1968 through 3 January 1971. a. The available military service records fail to show he experienced a specific traumatic event during this period of service. However, the evidence of record shows he experienced wartime events during the period of service. b. A DD Form 214 documents his honorable service during this period. 3. He reenlisted on 4 January 1971. He received NJP on two occasions and he was AWOL for a prolonged period (i.e., nearly 5 months). He was discharged under honorable conditions on 25 May 1972. 4. There is no evidence of record to show the applicant had a medical condition that was found to be medically unfitting during the period of service under review. a. The VA has granted the applicant disability compensation for service-connected PTSD. b. The ARBA staff psychiatrist found no evidence that the applicant's post-service diagnosis of PTSD mitigated his misconduct that led to his discharge. 5. On 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards and 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. a. This policy provides for upgrade of a UOTHC characterization of service consistent with the overall character of service during the period under review as mitigated by the (then) undiagnosed medical condition. An upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions offers the former Soldier eligibility for veterans' benefits. b. The applicant was not discharged UOTHC; he was administratively discharged under honorable conditions. c. He is receiving service connected compensation for his post-service diagnosis of PTSD. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150015421 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150015421 9 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2