BOARD DATE: 26 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000634 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 BOARD DATE: 26 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000634 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant amendment of the ABCMR's decision in Docket Number AC82-09093, dated 13 October 1982. 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. BOARD DATE: 26 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000634 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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to honorable. 2. The applicant states: a. He received the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) on 22 October 1967 and his first Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) with "V" Device in 1967. He received an Article 15 for being absent without leave (AWOL) in January 1968. He was convicted by a special court-martial for being AWOL, he was AWOL again due to financial problems, and he was subsequently discharged. b. On 15 December 2014, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) diagnosed him with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). c. He believes he was suffering from PTSD after he received his combat awards. The PTSD was affecting his ability to make sound executive decisions. He was a good Soldier until the end of 1967 after he experienced his first combat action. 3. The applicant provides: * VA medical records * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) * service personnel records 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 AC82-09093 on 13 October 1982. 2. The VA documentation showing he was diagnosed with PTSD is new evidence that was not previously considered by the Board and warrants consideration at this time. 3. The applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 23 February 1967. He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (light weapons infantryman). 4. On 10 July 1967, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for sleeping on security guard duty. 5. He arrived in Vietnam on 18 August 1967. 6. On 5 January 1968, NJP was imposed against him for being AWOL from 23 December 1967 to 2 January 1968. 7. He departed Vietnam on 27 August 1968. 8. On 20 June 1969, he was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 13 January to 3 June 1969. 9. He was again AWOL from 27 June 1969 to 8 July 1971. 10. On 26 July 1971, he underwent a mental health status evaluation. His behavior was normal, he was fully alert and fully oriented as to time and place, his mood was level, his thinking was clear, his thought content was normal, and his memory was good. No significant mental illness was noted. He was able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right. He had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings. 11. On 16 August 1971, charges were preferred against him for the AWOL period 27 June 1969 to 8 July 1971. 12. On 27 August 1971, he consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. 13. The separation authority approved the recommendation on 27 August 1971 and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 14. On 14 September 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 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. He completed 2 years and 11 days of total active service with 923 days of lost time. He was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 15. There is no evidence showing he was diagnosed with PTSD prior to his discharge. 16. On 6 April 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for a discharge upgrade. 17. On 13 October 1982, the ABCMR denied his request for a discharge upgrade. 18. He provided a copy of his Initial PTSD Disability Benefits Questionnaire for his VA Mental Health Compensation and Pension Examination, dated 23 December 2014, showing he was diagnosed with PTSD by a licensed psychologist. 19. An advisory opinion was rendered by the Army Review Boards Agency Clinical Psychiatrist, dated 10 November 2016, wherein she stated: a. A review of the VA medical documentation, dated 23 December 2014, indicates the applicant was diagnosed with combat-related PTSD. The examiner notes the applicant continues to experience the following symptoms: intrusive thoughts, nightmares, insomnia, hypervigilance, increased startle reaction, anhedonia, and depression. The applicant identifies his traumatic stressor as seeing his best friend get shot in the head while they were under a ground attack in Vietnam. b. His military records are void of documentation of PTSD symptoms. There is no indication in his military records that he failed to meet military medical retention standards. His mental status evaluation, dated 26 July 1971, indicates he had no mental illness, could tell right from wrong and adhere to the right, and he had the mental capacity to participate in administrative hearings. c. The lack of documentation of PTSD symptoms in his military records does not necessarily indicate he did not have PTSD. In the era of his military service, PTSD symptoms were frequently not recognized. Oftentimes, in these cases, the presence of PTSD has to be inferred from behavioral indicators. Such is the case with this applicant. Review of his file reveals he was a good Soldier as evidenced by him being awarded the CIB and the ARCOM with "V" Device and one oak leaf cluster. Additionally, he is noted to have received five excellent and two satisfactory conduct and efficiency ratings. However, this behavior changed at some point during his deployment to Vietnam. At that time, he began going AWOL. In total, he was AWOL three times. This behavior can be explained by the development of in-service PTSD, as PTSD is associated with avoidance behaviors such as going AWOL. d. Based on the information available at this time, there is sufficient evidence to conclude the applicant had undiagnosed PTSD while serving on active duty. Because PTSD can be associated with avoidant behaviors, there is likely a nexus between the applicant's PTSD and the misconduct which led to his discharge UOTHC from the Army. 20. A copy of this advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment and/or rebuttal. He responded by stating he was AWOL in Vietnam after he was awarded the CIB and his first ARCOM with "V" Device. He had already been traumatized by his combat experience. Prior to leaving Vietnam, he was overpaid without realizing it. When he returned to the United States, he was advised of the overpayment and went for 3 months without pay. He was forced to borrow toiletries from other Soldiers in his barracks. He was drinking heavily due to other Soldiers buying him drinks and he was not making sound decisions due to his PTSD. He only had 52 days left in the Army when he was AWOL the second time. Each time he was AWOL, he was under the influence of alcohol. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from active duty. 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, 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 was normally furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service. b. 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. A general discharge is defined as 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 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." 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. The evidence of record shows he accepted NJP for sleeping on security guard duty prior to his service in Vietnam. He further accepted NJP for being AWOL during his service in Vietnam, followed by a special court-martial conviction for being AWOL 5 months after his return to the United States. He was AWOL again 1 week after his court-martial conviction. Court-martial charges were preferred against him for the last AWOL period. At the time of his discharge, he had accrued over 2 1/2 years of lost time. 2. 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 conformed with applicable regulations in effect at the time. 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. 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. 4. His diagnosis of PTSD in 2014 is acknowledged. 5. A clinical psychiatrist reviewed his records and determined there is sufficient evidence to conclude he had undiagnosed PTSD while serving on active duty and because PTSD can be associated with avoidant behaviors, there is likely a nexus between his PTSD and the misconduct which led to his discharge UOTHC from the Army. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160000634 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160000634 8 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2