BOARD DATE: 6 December 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160003842 BOARD VOTE: ____X_____ __X_____ ___X_____ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 6 December 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160003842 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant amendment of the ABCMR's decision in Docket Number AR1999032612, dated 28 October 1999. 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. ______________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: 6 December 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160003842 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 undesirable discharge to general under honorable conditions. 2. The applicant states: * he wants to receive medical treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) * his records were lost and he did not lose them * PTSD was not known in 1972 * the Army called him a baby killer 3. The applicant provides: * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) * undated self-authored letter * documentation from a clinical psychologist, dated 2000 and 2002 * character-reference letters * letters to Members of Congress, dated 8 February 2001 and 12 August 2002 * Social Security Administration letter, dated 26 September 2000 * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552), dated 18 October 2002 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 AR1999032612 on 28 October 1999. 2. The letter from the clinical psychologist, dated 20 July 2000, is new evidence that was not previously considered by the Board and warrants consideration at this time. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 31 July 1969 for a period of 3 years. He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 76Y (unit and organization supply specialist). He served in Vietnam from January 1970 to 3 December 1970. 4. On 20 January 1971, nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice was imposed against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 18 January 1971 to 20 January 1971. 5. He was AWOL again from 28 January 1971 to 7 January 1972. 6. His records are void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge action. However, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under other than honorable conditions for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, on 15 March 1972 and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He completed 1 year and 8 months of total active service with 345 days of lost time. 7. There is no evidence of record showing he was diagnosed with PTSD or any mental health condition prior to his discharge. 8. There is no evidence showing he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 9. On 28 October 1999, the ABCMR denied his request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge. In June 2001, the ABCMR denied his request for reconsideration for an upgrade of his discharge. In May 2003, the ABCMR denied his request for reconsideration for an upgrade of his discharge. 10. He provided a letter from a clinical psychologist, dated 20 July 2000, showing he was diagnosed with PTSD and that his diagnosis is based on his heavy combat experience in Vietnam. 11. He provided character-reference letters from friends and family members attesting: * he is a quiet, fairly conservative person with deep family values * he needs help to confront the trauma he experienced * he served honorably in Vietnam * he was a changed person when he returned home * the horrific situations and stress made him unable to cope with military life * his discharge prevents him from receiving Department of Veterans Affairs benefits * he is a detailed and oriented man with a great sense of humor * he has suffered and is still suffering from PTSD 12. He also provided an undated self-authored letter stating: a. He is a combat veteran and was separated in 1972 with an undesirable discharge. He could not adjust after he got back from the war. He was AWOL for 11 months. b. Three years ago he began to have horrible flashbacks and exhibited angry behavior. He went to the nearest Veterans Medical Center and applied for a discharge upgrade. His request was denied in 1999. c. His records were lost in the National Personnel Records Center fire in 1973. d. He has been seeing a psychologist and was diagnosed with PTSD. e. He receives social security disability benefits. 13. An advisory opinion was rendered by the Chief, Behavioral Health Division, Office of the Surgeon General, dated 23 September 2016, wherein he stated: a. Correspondence, dated 31 July 1998, indicates the applicant was receiving counseling at the Lewiston Veterans Center. As of July 2002, he had been in individual therapy with a clinical psychologist for 2 years and diagnosed with PTSD. He was described as having frequent flashbacks to Vietnam, being guarded and isolative, and unable to work due to his anxiety with a poor prognosis for recovery. Letters from family members attest to the degree of impairment he has experienced since returning home. He receives social security disability benefits. b. His subsequent diagnosis is a strong indicator that he was experiencing PTSD symptoms at the time of his separation and that these symptoms mitigated the conduct that led to his discharge. 14. 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 3-7b 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. 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." 3. 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. 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 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. 5. 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. 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 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. Although the applicant contends his records were lost in the National Personnel Records Center fire in 1972, his service records were not among those destroyed in the fire and were available for review. 2. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant's separation processing was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. Without the discharge packet to consider, it is presumed that the authority and reason for his discharge and the characterization of service he received were commensurate with his overall record of service. 3. At the time of his discharge, PTSD was largely unrecognized by the medical community and DOD. However, 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. 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. 5. The applicant was diagnosed with PTSD in 2000 and he provided a letter from his clinical psychologist stating his diagnosis of PTSD is based on his heavy combat experience in Vietnam. It is reasonable to believe his PTSD condition existed at the time of his discharge and may be considered likely a mitigating factor in his misconduct. 6. In addition, the advisory official states his subsequent diagnosis is a strong indicator that he was experiencing PTSD symptoms at the time of his separation and that these symptoms mitigated the conduct that led to his discharge. 7. A general discharge, which the applicant has requested, 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160003842 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160003842 7 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2