BOARD DATE: 3 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001622 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: 3 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001622 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. voiding his current DD Form 214 for the period ending 25 July 1974 and b. reissuing a DD Form 214 for this period showing: (1) his rank as specialist five, (2) his pay grade as E-5, (3) his date of rank as 28 March 1967, and (4) his character of 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: 3 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001622 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 an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to honorable. 2. The applicant states he spent 2 years in Vietnam and he did not want to leave. He was shot, sent to a hospital, and returned to the United States. When he arrived in California, protestors continuously directed negative comments toward him and he was shocked by their comments. He was awarded a Purple Heart at Fort Stewart, GA, that was just tossed to him by his sergeant. No one at the base cared about him. He was assigned to the ammunition dump, which was 20 miles from the base, and he guarded the dump by himself. He did not have anyone to talk with and he had flashbacks of his experiences in Vietnam, California, and Georgia. He was unable to sleep at night and was alone all day thinking about his experiences. He started drinking heavily and continued to drink to the point that nothing really mattered to him. He went home and never looked back. The sheriff told him the military was looking for him, but he was not locked up. Military police picked him up and returned him to Fort Stewart where the Army court-martialed him and discharged him under other than honorable conditions. He requests an upgrade his discharge to allow the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide him assistance. 3. The applicant provides four character references. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 August 1965. He was assigned to Vietnam on 2 January 1966. He was advanced to specialist five (SP5)/E-5 on 28 March 1967. He was honorably discharged on 9 August 1967 for immediate reenlistment. He reenlisted on 10 August 1967 in the rank of SP5/E-5. 3. He accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, on two occasions for being absent without leave (AWOL) from on or about 1 to 16 October 1967 and from 23 to 30 July 1968. 4. His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he departed Vietnam on 14 April 1968 and was reassigned to Fort Stewart, GA. 5. On 21 May 1974, court-martial charges were preferred against him for being AWOL from on or about 11 August 1968 to 30 April 1974. 6. On 8 May 1974, he consulted with legal counsel and he was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the possible effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions, and the procedures and rights available to him. Following counseling, he submitted a voluntary written 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. 7. In his request for discharge, he indicated he understood that if his request for discharge were accepted, he could receive an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He acknowledged he understood that such a discharge could deprive him of many or all Army benefits, could make him ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, and could deprive him of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws. He submitted statements in his own behalf. He stated he did not like the Army and could never be a good Soldier. He cared if he got an undesirable discharge, but he would take it if it would get him out of the Army. He stated his counselor advised him that he had 72 hours to consider his request for a chapter 10 discharge. He stated he wanted to put in his chapter 10 request at that time. 8. His chain of command recommended disapproval of the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10 and recommended trial by general court-martial. 9. On 29 May 1974, the separation authority approved his request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and directed his reduction to the rank of private/E-1 with characterization of his service as under other than honorable conditions. 10. On 25 July 1974, 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. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 1 year, 1 month, and 6 days of creditable active service and he accrued a total of 1,847 days of lost time during the following periods: * 1 to 15 October 1967 * 23 to 29 July 1968 * 11 August 1968 to 9 August 1973 * 10 August 1973 to 29 April 1974 11. On 31 December 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. 12. He provided character references from a friend, a former employer, a family member, and his spouse who attested that he is an outstanding citizen, a valuable employee, a hard-working person, an honest and trustworthy man, a provider for his family, a faithful husband, and a great supporter of the community. 13. On 7 July 2017, the Army Review Boards Agency Psychiatrist provided an advisory opinion wherein she stated: a. The applicant is now applying to the ABCMR for a discharge upgrade, contending that his misconduct was due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) he developed while he was deployed to Vietnam. b. A review was conducted of the applicant's application, the Army Discharge Review Board Record of Proceedings, military personnel and medical records, and the electronic VA medical record (Joint Legacy Viewer). The VA medical record indicates it contains no data regarding the applicant. The military electronic medical record (Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application) was not reviewed as this system was not in use during the applicant's time in service. c. The applicant has provided no medical documentation in support of his claim of PTSD. d. A review of the available military medical records indicates the following: (1) A Standard Form 93 (Report of Medical History, dated 14 May 1974, shows the applicant answered "No" to each of the following symptoms listed in the query: "Have you ever had or have you now: (1) Epilepsy, (2) Frequent trouble sleeping, (3) Depression or excessive worry, (4) Loss of memory or amnesia, and (5) Nervous trouble of any sort?" (2) A Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 14 May 1974, indicates the applicant had a normal physical examination. His psychiatric profile is documented as "1" (no psychiatric disability). (3) The applicant's military medical records are void of any documentation of PTSD symptoms. His records are also void of documentation of any behavioral health symptoms or disorders. e. There is no indication in the military records that the applicant failed to meet military medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness). f. Based on the available information, there is insufficient evidence at this time to substantiate the applicant's contention that his misconduct was caused by PTSD. Without corroborating medical documentation of the applicant's reported PTSD, no decision regarding mitigation can be made. 14. A copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant. On 18 July 2017, the applicant responded by providing a VA acceptance letter and a medical report, both stating the applicant does in fact have PTSD and it is related to his service in the Army. The applicant provided the following documents: a. A VA decision letter, dated 29 August 2016, stated the applicant was granted service connection for coronary heart disease rated at 100-percent disabling and PTSD rated at 30-percent disabling. b. A Department of Neurology Clinical Evaluation summary, dated 1 July 2016, noted the applicant had endorsed a possible history of PTSD following his time in Vietnam from 1968 to 1969, for which he was awarded a Purple Heart. In addition, the applicant endorsed a history of symptoms consistent with a mild depressive disorder and co-morbid symptoms of PTSD, including hypervigilance, stress, sleep disturbance, and intrusive images. The clinical psychologist stated the applicant did not endorse a history of treatment for PTSD-related symptoms or a history of hallucinations, delusional patterns, or suicidal ideation, plan, or intent. 15. On 28 July 2017, the Army Review Boards Agency staff psychiatrist provided a revised advisory opinion in which she reiterated some of the comments from her previous opinion. Additionally, she reviewed the VA rating decision letter, dated 29 August 2016, and psychological evaluation, dated 1 July 2016, provided by the applicant. The staff psychiatrist stated: a. The VA rating decision letter indicates the applicant has been rated as 30-percent service connected for the diagnosis of PTSD. b. The psychological evaluation was performed by a clinical psychologist of Rush University Department of Neurology. In this evaluation, the applicant endorses the following PTSD symptoms: hypervigilance, sleep disturbance, stress, and intrusive images. c. The electronic VA medical record was reviewed and indicates it contains no data regarding the applicant. d. There is no indication in the military records that the applicant failed to meet military medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation  40-501. e. The applicant has been diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. The applicant's military records, however, are void of documentation of any symptoms of PTSD. The lack of documentation of PTSD symptoms in the applicant's medical records does not necessarily indicate that the applicant did not have PTSD while in the military. In the era of the applicant's military service, PTSD was not a recognized diagnosis. Consequently, this diagnosis often has to be inferred from the available documentation. Such is the situation in this case. In his statement to his commanding general, dated 8 May 1974, the applicant states, "I could never be a good soldier." This statement is an example of the negative alterations in cognitions and mood associated with PTSD. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), Fifth Edition, this statement meets criteria D.2 for the diagnosis of PTSD: "Persistent and exaggerated negative beliefs or expectations about oneself, others or the world." f. Based on the available information, it is the Agency psychiatrist's opinion that there is sufficient medical evidence to substantiate the applicant's contention that his misconduct was caused by PTSD. As PTSD is associated with avoidant behaviors, there is likely a nexus between the applicant's PTSD and the offense of being AWOL. The applicant's diagnosis of PTSD is considered mitigating for the misconduct which led to his discharge from the Army under other than honorable conditions. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 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. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, at the time an under other than honorable conditions discharge was normally considered appropriate. When a Soldier is to be discharged under other than honorable conditions, the separation authority will direct an immediate reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. 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 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. 3. 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." 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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 under other than honorable conditions 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. 7. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and BCMs/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 with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions 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. 8. 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? 9. Although DOD acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions 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 under other than honorable conditions 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 under other than honorable conditions. 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. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant voluntarily requested separation for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, to avoid trial by court-martial. All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. His service records do not indicate that he made his request under coercion or duress. 2. The evidence of record shows the applicant received an honorable discharge for his prior service from 4 August 1965 to 9 August 1967. 3. The evidence of record shows the applicant served in Vietnam from 2 January 1966 to 14 April 1968. His disciplinary history shows he received nonjudicial punishment twice for being AWOL from on or about 1 to 16 October 1967 and from 23 to 30 July 1968. 4. The applicant's records further show court-martial charges were preferred against him for being AWOL from 11 August 1968 to 30 April 1974. 5. The Board acknowledges the applicant's statements regarding his difficulty dealing with flashbacks of his experiences in Vietnam, California, and Georgia. 6. The Army Review Boards Agency staff psychiatrist opined that the lack of documentation of PTSD symptoms in the applicant's military records does not necessarily indicate the applicant did not have PTSD while in the military. The psychiatrist noted that in the era of the applicant's military service, PTSD was not a recognized diagnosis and the diagnosis has to be inferred from the available documentation. Based on the documents provided by the applicant, the psychiatrist concluded there is sufficient medical evidence to substantiate the applicant's contention that his misconduct was caused by 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) AR20160001622 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160001622 10 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2