IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150016364 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: 16 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150016364 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: 16 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150016364 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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to a general, under honorable conditions discharge based upon a post-service diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other service-connected medical conditions. 2. The applicant states that he was a good Soldier. He served in Vietnam from 22 January 1970 to 15 January 1971. He has several service-connected medical conditions that are presumptive to his active duty service that include PTSD and ischemic heart disease [a decrease in blood supply to a bodily organ, tissue, or body part caused by constriction or obstruction of the blood vessels]. An upgrade of the characterization of his service will help him in his efforts to apply for veterans' benefits, including healthcare. 3. The applicant provides no documentary evidence in support of his application. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 August 1969 for a period of 3 years. He was awarded military occupational specialty 63B (Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic). a. He was assigned overseas to serve in Vietnam on 22 January 1970. b. He accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failing to obey a lawful order by exceeding the posted speed limit on 16 June 1970. c. He was promoted to specialist four (E-4) on 6 July 1970. d. On 23 September 1970, the applicant's request for extension of his foreign service tour was approved and his date eligible to return from overseas was adjusted to 21 July 1971. e. On 12 December 1970, he departed on 30 days of special leave. His destination was his spouse's residence in Cincinnati, OH. 2. A review of the applicant's military personnel records reveals he was: * attached (pending hardship discharge) to the 22nd Replacement Detachment, Fort Knox, KY, effective 13 January 1971 * absent without leave (AWOL), effective 11 February 1971 * released from attachment (AWOL status), effective 26 February 1971 * dropped from the rolls as a deserter, effective 3 August 1971 * returned to military control (after being apprehended by civil authorities), effective 4 January 1972 * assigned to U.S. Army Personnel Control Facility, Fort Knox, KY, effective 4 January 1972 a. Charges were preferred against the applicant and, on 25 January 1972, he was informed of the charges against him for violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice. b. Review of the applicant's military personnel records failed to reveal a copy of a charge sheet or an administrative separation packet. 3. A DA Form 3082-R (Statement of Medical Condition), dated 24 February 1972, shows the applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 30 January 1972 and he placed a checkmark in the box indicating "There has been no change in my medical condition." 4. Headquarters, U.S. Army Armor Center, Fort Knox, KY, Special Orders Number 41, dated 18 February 1972, discharged the applicant from the Regular Army, in the grade of rank of private (E-1), effective 24 February 1972, with a DD Form 258A (UOTHC Discharge Certificate) under the provisions of (UP) Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) for the good of the Service. 5. The applicant's DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he entered active duty this period on 15 August 1969 and he was discharged on 24 February 1972 UP AR 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the Service with an UOTHC characterization of service. He had completed 1 year, 6 months, and 18 days of net active service during this period that included 11 months and 24 days of foreign service. Item 30 (Remarks) shows he had 356 days lost under Title 10, U.S. Code, section 972, from 9 November 1969 through 15 November 1969, from 11 February 1971 through 3 January 1972, and from 4 January 1972 through 25 January 1972. 6. A review of the applicant's military personnel records failed to reveal any evidence that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. 7. The applicant did not provide copies of any military or civilian medical records in support of his application. 8. In the processing of this case an Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) staff medical official conducted a review of the applicant's available military service records and his electronic medical record available in the Department of Veterans Affairs, Joint Legacy Viewer. This review failed to reveal evidence of a diagnosis of PTSD. 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 635-200, in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 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. c. Chapter 3, paragraph 3-7b, provides that 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. 9. AR 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. The regulation provides that the 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. The applicant contends that his UOTHC discharge should be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge based upon post-service diagnoses of PTSD and other service-connected medical conditions. 2. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 August 1969. a. He was assigned overseas to Vietnam on 22 January 1970 for a 1-year tour of duty. He voluntarily extended his foreign service tour for a period of 6 months. He completed 11 months and 24 days of his 18-month tour of duty and departed on a 30-day special leave in the United States. b. The evidence of record shows that, at the end of his 30-day leave, he reported to Fort Knox, KY, and requested a hardship discharge. Approximately 30 days later, he went AWOL. Based on the available evidence, it appears his request for hardship discharge was denied. c. The applicant went AWOL on 11 February 1971 and he remained in an AWOL status for a prolonged period of time, which resulted in court-martial charges being preferred against him. This led to his request for discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. 3. The regulations governing the Board's operation require that the discharge process be presumed to have been in accordance with applicable law and regulations unless the applicant can provide evidence to overcome that presumption. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the discharge process, the type of discharge, and the characterization of service directed are presumed to have been appropriate. 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. There is also no evidence of a post-service diagnosis of PTSD or any service-connected medical condition(s). //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150016364 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150016364 7 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2