IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150017591 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: 2 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150017591 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR2002073717, dated 6 February 2002. _____________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: 2 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150017591 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 to upgrade his undesirable discharge. 2. The applicant states: a. He is in no way trying to down play the mistakes he made or his responsibility for them. His marital problems began while he was serving in Vietnam and he believed he could make it work at the time, but it didn't. The problem now is that he is a 66-year old man having to take responsibility for a confused 17 or 18-year-old teenager. He was a good Soldier. b. After his discharge, it was like he lost his mind. He started doing things totally against his upbringing. He got into an altercation at a restaurant where he was working and before he could gain control of his emotions he had used a kitchen knife and cut a fellow worker. He spent time in jail for that mishap. He had become like a ship without a rudder, out of control. Through a lot of prayer and the love of a good wife, things became clear. He was so angry. He couldn't fit in anywhere. c. He is seeing a psychologist for anger issues and was interviewed about his Vietnam experience. He was referred to the Vietnam Veterans of America and given an article titled "Discharges to be Reviewed in PTSD [Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder] Cases." After his PTSD diagnosis, he was encouraged to petition the Board based on the Defense Secretary memorandum, dated 3 September 2014. d. At the end of every day, he is a Vietnam combat veteran. 3. The applicant provides a psychological summary, dated 15 September 2015. 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 AR200207317 on 6 February 2002. 2. The psychological summary provided by the applicant is new evidence that was not previously considered by the Board and warrants consideration at this time. 2. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 August 1968 for a period of 3 years. 3. He served in Vietnam from 12 March 1969 to 8 August 1969. 4. On 2 November 1969, he was honorably discharged for immediate reenlistment. On 3 November 1969, he reenlisted for a period of 6 years. 5. He was absent without leave (AWOL) from 10 January 1971 to 10 January 1972 due to civil confinement. On 11 January 1972, charges were preferred against him for the AWOL period. 6. On 13 January 1972, he underwent a separation physical examination and was found qualified for separation. His Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 13 January 1972, noted no psychiatric disease demonstrated on this examination and no mental defects which warranted medical disposition. His Standard Form 89 (Report of Medical History), dated 13 January 1972, shows he marked "No" for frequent trouble sleeping and frequent or terrifying nightmares. 7. On 27 January 1972 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 Department of Veterans Affairs, 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 to submit a statement in his own behalf. In summary, he stated he should be discharged from the Army for the following reasons: * he was AWOL because of mental stress due to marital problems * he had to go home to take care of the problems * he needed to get proof for a divorce and get custody of his children * while he was home he got a job * he and his wife got back together for a short period of time * his wife was found guilty of forgery and sentenced to 5 years in prison * his wife's family disowned him and refused to let him see his children * his attorney advised him to turn himself in, get cleared from the Army, and start legal proceedings to gain custody of his children 8. On 14 February 1972, the separation authority approved his voluntary request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 9. On 1 March 1972, 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. He completed a total of 2 years, 6 months, and 13 days of creditable active service with 371 days of lost time. His service was characterized as UOTHC. 10. There is no evidence of record showing he was diagnosed with any mental health conditions prior to his discharge. 11. There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 12. On 6 February 2002, the ABCMR denied his request for a discharge upgrade. The Board concluded that his misconduct (371 days of lost time) outweighed his 30 months of honorable service and short tour in Vietnam. 13. He provided a psychological summary from Clinical Psychologists, Professional Corporation, dated 15 September 2015, stating he was self-referred with a primary goal of learning anger management techniques and a secondary goal of seeking help in his pursuit of an upgrade of his military discharge. His contention is that he suffering from symptoms of PTSD after returning from Vietnam which influenced his actions and judgment. He detailed a number of traumatic incidents while serving in Vietnam. Per the psychologist's evaluation, he experienced significant symptoms of PTSD after his return from Vietnam. 14. An advisory opinion was rendered by the Army Review Boards Agency Psychologist, dated 15 December 2016, wherein he stated: a. At the time of the applicant's separation physical examination, he denied all psychological symptoms, including nightmares or disturbed sleep. In his current application, he now offers a psychological summary where he described an ensemble of symptoms he experienced during his service; however, the symptoms he described were in in the evidence of record from that time or were not endorsed during his separation physical examination. In any event, even if one allows the diagnosis was accurate during the years in question, as one should under the Secretary of Defense's Policy of liberal guidance, the duration of the AWOL, its intentional nature (as previously described by the applicant), its reason for occurring (again according to previous testimony of the applicant), go well beyond the kinds of behavior characteristic of PTSD. The applicant's AWOL, when viewed in its totality, cannot plausibly be mitigated because of a PTSD diagnosis. b. The applicant met medical retention standards applicable to his era of service. c. His medical conditions were not shown to have been ignored at the time of his discharge. d. A review of available documentation did not find evidence of a mental health condition or conditions that are supportive of a change to the character of the discharge in this case. A nexus between the applicant's misconduct and a mental health condition was not discovered. 15. 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 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. 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. 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. a. In 1980, the APA added 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." b. 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. c. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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? 6. 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. In 1972 and again in 2002, he claimed he was AWOL because of marital issues. He stated his wife was incarcerated and he needed to care for his children. 2. He now contends he was suffering from symptoms of PTSD after returning from Vietnam, which influenced his actions and judgment. 3. He provided documentation showing he was diagnosed with PTSD in 2015. 4. There is no evidence and he provided no evidence showing he was diagnosed with any mental or behavioral health condition prior to his discharge in March 1972. 5. His 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 in conformance with applicable regulations. 6. His record of service included 371 days of lost time. 7. The medical advisory official found no indication that any behavioral health condition mitigated the misconduct leading to his discharge in 1972. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150017591 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150017591 8 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2