IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160005790 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 IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160005790 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by re-issuing the applicant's DD Form 214 to show the characterization of service as honorable and his rank/grade as private first class/pay grade E-3 with an effective date of rank of 15 December 1969. ___________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: 12 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160005790 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 his undesirable discharge be upgraded to at least a general discharge under honorable conditions. 2. The applicant states his behavior and poor judgment in the service was a direct result of his undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). He feels that if he would have received treatment while in service, he would not have been discharged under the conditions he was discharged. The Army chose to get rid of him instead of helping him identify his mental health condition and possibly get treated. He was an outstanding Soldier until he experienced service in Vietnam. He was wounded there and he was awarded the Purple Heart. He was also awarded the Soldier's Medal and the Air Medal while in theater. He did not pursue an upgrade to his discharge sooner because he has been trying to forget Vietnam. 3. The applicant provides: * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), with an effective date of 6 December 1971 * Compensation & Pension (C&P) PTSD, Initial Evaluation, dated 4 June 2015, from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 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. On 9 December 1968, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupation specialty (MOS) 68B (Aircraft Turbine Engine Repairman). 3. On 18 June 1969, he was promoted to private first class (PFC)/pay grade E-3. 4. The applicant served in the Republic of Vietnam from 17 July 1969 - 16 July 1970. He was assigned to: * the 15th Transportation Battalion - 21 July 1969 - 29 September 1969 * the 564th Transportation Detachment - 30 September 1969 - 2 January 1970 * Battery E, 82nd Artillery - 2 January 1970 - 15 July 1970 5. The applicant received non-judicial punishment (NJP) on: * 26 September 1969 for two specifications of failing to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty (NJP included reduction to private E-2 (PV2) * 2 November 1969 for being absent without leave from 1630 hours, 30 October 1969 - 1630 hours, 1 November 1969 (NJP included reduction to private E-1 (PVT) 6. On 3 November 1969, the applicant was promoted to PV2. On 15 December 1969, the applicant was promoted to PFC in and awarded MOS 67N (UH-1 Helicopter Mechanic). 7. Headquarters, 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile) issued the following General Orders (GO): * GO 496, dated 8 January 1970, awarded the applicant the Air Medal for meritorious achievement from 25 - 30 December 1969 * GO 2671, dated 20 February 1970, awarded him the Soldier's Medal for heroism not involving actual conflict with an armed enemy in the Republic of Vietnam * GO 5218, dated 6 April 1970, awarded him the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service from June 1969 - June 1970 * GO 7128, dated 4 May 1970, awarded him the Purple Heart for wounds received in connection with military operations against a hostile force on 31 January 1969 8. The applicant's citation for the award of the Soldier's Medal reads in part: [The applicant] distinguished himself by heroism on 4 January 1970, while serving as door gunner near Phuoc Vinh, Republic of Vietnam. Discovering a light observation helicopter had crashed and was burning, [the applicant's] helicopter landed. He unhesitatingly raced to the burning helicopter, from which ammunition was cooking off and exploding to pull the painfully wounded door gunner to safety. His bravery under conditions extremely hazardous to his own welfare was instrumental in saving the life of a fellow Soldier. 9. On 22 September 1970, the applicant was assigned to the 326th Transportation Detachment in Germany. 10. On 4 February 1971, a Criminal Investigation Command (CID) Report of Investigation (ROI), first progress report, revealed that on 3 February 1971, during a unit shakedown, officers observed the applicant throw a small brown bottle (suspected of containing opium) out the window of his billets room. Subsequent chemical analysis of the contents of the bottle revealed that tablets were Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD) (a hallucinogen) and Dextroamphetamine (a central nervous system stimulant). 11. On 31 July 1971, a Military Police Report indicated that on 26 July 1971, the applicant was cited for: * Operating a vehicle without a valid operator's permit * Owning and operating an unregistered and uninsured vehicle * Wrongful possession of license plates 12. On 7 October 1971, a CID ROI (first progress report) revealed that on 4 October 1971, officers recovered three plastic bags and a bamboo pole containing suspected marijuana from under the applicant's mattress. A search of his personal effects disclosed one brown smoking pipe, one black pipe bowl, one brown pipe bowl, one bamboo pipe stem and two pieces of vegetable matter, all containing suspected marijuana. The applicant also possessed nine white tablets, nine red capsules, one vile containing one capsule and 43 white tablets, and an envelope containing papers of which all were suspected to contain dangerous drugs. Subsequent chemical analysis of the contents of the bottle revealed: * the vegetable matter revealed the presence of marijuana * one pipe stem and one pipe bowl revealed the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active ingredient of marijuana * one capsule was identified as Darvon, a mile analgesic, prescription controlled, not listed on the Controlled Substance Act * one of the white tablets was identified as V-Cillin K, a penicillin preparation, prescription controlled, not listed on the Controlled Substance Act * examination of the remaining items and pills did not reveal the presence of any narcotic or dangerous drug 13. On 5 November 1971, the applicant's commander informed him that he intended to initiate elimination action against the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-212 (Personnel Separations, Discharge, Unfitness and Unsuitability) for reasons of unfitness. The commander advised the applicant of his right: * to present his case before a board of officers, * to submit any statement in his behalf * to be represented by military counsel appointed by the convening authority, military counsel of his own choice, or civilian counsel at his own expense 14. On 8 November 1971, the applicant received a bar to reenlistment. 15. On 8 November 1971, the applicant's unit commander requested that the applicant be considered for elimination by reasons of unfitness. a. Discharge was recommended because the applicant had shown no motivation to perform even the most menial of duties. He consistently demonstrated a belligerent attitude and completely disregarded discipline. Attempts to gain productive efforts from the applicant had no results and he required constant supervision by his superiors. Because of his extremely poor performance and disregard of military discipline and responsibility he was considered unfit for further military service. b. The applicant was repeatedly counseled on numerous occasion on his consistently low level of performance and his negative attitude. He was disrespectful toward his superiors on numerous occasions and his normal appearance was totally unacceptable. He required constant supervision to effect the most minimal performance. Because of his poor attitude, level of performance, and constant threat to discipline and morale, he was considered totally unfit for further service in the military. Attempts at rehabilitation were not recommended. c. The only course of action that was considered appropriate in the applicant's case was elimination from the service for unfitness and the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. d. The applicant was in pre-trial confinement awaiting trial by special court-martial. The charges pending were: * wrongful possession of LSD * wrongful possession of amphetamines * operating a private owned vehicle (POV) without a valid operator's license * operating an unlicensed POV * operating a POV bearing registration plates issued to another vehicle * absence from his place of duty without authority * wrongful possession of marijuana * wrongful possession of marijuana in the hashish form 16. On 10 November 1971, the applicant submitted a statement acknowledging that he had been advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated action against him under the provisions of AR 635-212 for unfitness. The applicant: * waived consideration by a board of officers * waived a personal appearance * stated that he was not submitting statements in his own behalf * waived counsel 17. He understood he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in the event a general discharge under honorable conditions was issued to him. He acknowledged that, as the result of issuance of an undesirable discharge under conditions other than honorable, he may be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both federal and state laws and that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life. 18. On 22 November 1971, the appropriate authority directed the applicant be discharged from the service for unfitness under the provisions of AR 635-212 and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He was to be reduced in grade to private E-1. 19. On 30 November 1971, the applicant was reduced in grade to private E-1. 20. On 6 December 1971, the applicant was discharged. He completed 2 years, 11 months, and 28 days of net active service that was characterized as under conditions other than honorable. He had 1 day of time lost. The applicant's discharge orders and his DD Form 214 show the authority for his discharge as AR 635-212 and the separation program designator (SPD) code as 46A. The applicant was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 21. The applicant's DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he received efficiency and conduct ratings of excellent up until his return from Vietnam in July 1970. 22. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within the ADRB's 15-year statute of limitations. 23. The applicant provided his VA Initial PTSD Disability Benefits Questionnaire, dated 4 June 2015. a. The applicant was diagnosed with PTSD. The applicant's military personnel and treatment records, VA treatment records, interview with collateral witnesses (family and others who have known the applicant before and after military service), and other electronic medical records were reviewed. b. The applicant has been under the care of Dr. C, a clinical psychologist, since December 2009. c. Two stressors are indicated that contributed to the applicant's diagnosis of PTSD. Both stressors met Criteria A-H from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5). * "It was a pilot, myself and a gunner. The VC blew half his brains out. I was wearing his brains. Now talking about it, I can feel it on my body." * "I remember the faces of the guys I killed. I still see them." It was noted that the applicant was shot down, dropped behind enemy lines and acted as an assassin. d. Symptoms that applied to the diagnosis of PTSD included: * anxiety * chronic sleep impairment * impairment of short and long term memory e. The applicant was seen for Mental Health C & P examination on 2 June 2015. He was accompanied by his treating psychologist, Dr. C. f. It was the examiner's opinion that the applicant met full diagnostic criteria for PTSD based on DSM-5 criteria. It is at least as likely as not that the applicant's diagnosed condition of PTSD is related to his military service in Vietnam. g. A 2010 letter from Dr. C in the applicant's Veterans benefits management system (VBMS) (new paperless claim system) states the applicant was suffering from undiagnosed PTSD at the time of his poor performance reviews and substance abuse while stationed in Germany. The applicant also shared that he was struggling with many symptoms of PTSD while stationed in Germany. He reported experiencing intrusive thoughts/images of Vietnam, nightmares, avoidance of triggers, negative trauma related emotions (including anger and guilt), alienation/withdrawal, hypervigilance, exaggerated startle response, and significant sleep disturbance. These symptoms are consistent with a diagnosis of PTSD. 24. On 28 September 2016, an advisory opinion was received from the Office of the Surgeon General (OTSG). a. The initial PTSD Disability Benefits Questionnaire administered by the VA confirms the applicant meets full diagnostic criteria for PTSD which is at least as likely as not related to his military service in Vietnam. Records indicate that since December 2009 he has been under the care of a clinical psychologist who reported the applicant was struggling with symptoms of PTSD when he returned to Germany from Vietnam. b. The applicant's conduct and efficiency rating prior to September 1970 were consistently "Excellent." The poor judgment and reckless behavior consistent with symptoms of PTSD, suggests that he developed PTSD while serving in Vietnam and that this mitigated the misconduct that led to his other than honorable conditions discharge. 25. On 21 October 2016, the applicant submitted comments in response to the above advisory. a. He was a good Soldier with excellent conduct and efficiency ratings until he was reassigned to Germany after Vietnam. He was no hero, but just did his job. He was shot down a few times from the skids of a helicopter drawing fire and worked on "hunter/killer teams" behind the lines. On one of these Scout runs the gunner next to him had half his brains blown out and on another the pilot and copilot seated 3 feet away were both killed. b. He can only recall knowing that he wasn't right after Vietnam and all the killing. He couldn't relate to anyone in Germany. It was like he was from a totally different world. To this day he has difficulty being around people and cannot tolerate crowded places. The suffering and nightmares he goes through on a daily basis are only worsened by the shame he feels because of the under conditions other than honorable discharge he received. REFERENCES: 1. AR 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual and unit military awards. a. Chapter 2, Section II lists the Purple Heart as an individual Department of Defense decoration. b. Chapter 3, Section I lists the Soldier's Medal, the Air Medal, and the Army Commendation Medal as U.S. Army individual decorations. 2. AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations), in effect at the time, stated an honorable discharge would be furnished when the individual had conduct ratings of at least "good," had efficiency ratings of at least "fair," had not been convicted by a general court-martial, and had not been convicted more than once by a special court-martial. The regulation also provided that an individual may, where otherwise ineligible, receive an honorable discharge if he had, during his current enlistment, period of obligated service, or any extensions thereof, received a personal decoration, or was separated as a result of a disability incurred in line of duty. 3. AR 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. This regulation stated that commanders would not take action under this regulation in lieu of disciplinary action solely to spare an individual who may have committed serious misconduct the harsher penalties which may be imposed under the UCMJ. a. Paragraph 4a stated an individual separated by reason of unfitness was furnished an undesirable discharge certificate except that an honorable or general discharge certificate was awarded if the individual being discharged had been awarded a personal decoration or if warranted by the particular circumstances in a given case. b. Paragraph 4b stated an individual separated by reason of unsuitability was furnished an honorable or general discharge certificate as warranted by his military record. c. Paragraph 6a of the regulation provided that members were subject to separation for unfitness for: * frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities * sexual perversion * drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit-forming drugs or marijuana * an established pattern for shirking * an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts d. Paragraph 6b of the regulation provided that members were subject to separation for unsuitability for: * inaptitude * character and behavior disorders * apathy (lack of appropriate interest), defective attitudes, and inability to expend effort constructively * alcoholism * enuresis e. Paragraph 21 stated when an individual was to be discharged as unfit with an undesirable discharge, the convening authority directed his immediate reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. 4. AR 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD)) Codes), then in effect, prescribed the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the separation program designators to be used for these stated reasons. For SPD code 46A the narrative reason was Unsuitability - apathy (lack of appropriate interest), defective attitudes, and inability to expend effort constructively and the regulatory authority was AR 635-212. 5. 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." 6. 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. 7. The DSM fifth revision (DSM-V) 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 assesses functioning; and the eighth criterion clarifies symptoms as not attributable to a substance or co-occurring medical condition. a. Criterion A, stressor: The person was exposed to: death, threatened death, actual or threatened serious injury, or actual or threatened sexual violence, as follows (one required): (1) direct exposure; (2) witnessing, in person; (3) indirectly, by learning that a close relative or close friend was exposed to trauma. if the event involved actual or threatened death, it must have been violent or accidental; or (4) repeated or extreme indirect exposure to aversive details of the event(s), usually in the course of professional duties (e.g., first responders, collecting body parts; professionals repeatedly exposed to details of child abuse). This does not include indirect non-professional exposure through electronic media, television, movies, or pictures. b. Criterion B, intrusion symptoms: The traumatic event is persistently re-experienced in the following way(s) (one required): (1) recurrent, involuntary, and intrusive memories; (2) traumatic nightmares; (3) dissociative reactions (e.g., flashbacks) which may occur on a continuum from brief episodes to complete loss of consciousness; (4) intense or prolonged distress after exposure to traumatic reminders; or (5) marked physiologic reactivity after exposure to trauma-related stimuli. c. Criterion C, avoidance: Persistent effortful avoidance of distressing trauma-related stimuli after the event (one required): (1) trauma-related thoughts or feelings; or (2) trauma-related external reminders (e.g., people, places, conversations, activities, objects, or situations). d. Criterion D, negative alterations in cognitions and mood: Negative alterations in cognitions and mood that began or worsened after the traumatic event (two required): (1) inability to recall key features of the traumatic event (usually dissociative amnesia; not due to head injury, alcohol, or drugs); (2) persistent (and often distorted) negative beliefs and expectations about oneself or the world (e.g., "I am bad," "the world is completely dangerous"); (3) persistent distorted blame of self or others for causing the traumatic event or for resulting consequences; (4) persistent negative trauma-related emotions (e.g., fear, horror, anger, guilt, or shame); (5) markedly diminished interest in (pre-traumatic) significant activities, feeling alienated from others (e.g., detachment or estrangement); or (6) constricted affect: persistent inability to experience positive emotions. e. Criterion E, alterations in arousal and reactivity: Trauma-related alterations in arousal and reactivity that began or worsened after the traumatic event (two required): (1) irritable or aggressive behavior; (2) self-destructive or reckless behavior; (3) hypervigilance; (4) exaggerated startle response; (5) problems in concentration; or (6) sleep disturbance. f. Criterion F, duration: Persistence of symptoms (in Criteria B, C, D, and E) for more than one month. g. Criterion G, functional significance: Significant symptom-related distress or functional impairment (e.g., social, occupational). h. Criterion H, exclusion: Disturbance is not due to medication, substance use, or other illness. 8. 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 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. 9. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 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 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. 10. 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? 11. Although the 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 was discharged 2 days prior to the expiration of his term of service. 2. The applicant received NJP on two occasions. There is no record of conviction by a court-martial. 3. The applicant was the subject of two CID ROIs, both marked as 1st Progress Reports. 4. The request for elimination by the applicant's commander states the applicant was in pre-trial confinement and lists charges that were pending, some of which were the result of two CID ROIs. However, there is no record of charges being preferred against the applicant or that they were referred for court-martial. 5. Throughout the applicant's processing for discharge it was indicated he was being processed for discharge for unfitness. However, the specific reason for unfitness as listed in paragraph 6a of AR 635-212 is not indicated. His discharge orders and his DD Form 214 contain the SPD code 46A, which indicates he was discharged by reason of unsuitability - apathy (lack of appropriate interest), defective attitudes, and inability to expend effort constructively. 6. AR 635-200 provided that an individual may, where otherwise ineligible, receive an honorable discharge if he had, during his current enlistment, period of obligated service, or any extensions thereof, received a personal decoration. 7. AR 635-212 stated an individual separated by reason of unfitness was furnished an undesirable discharge certificate except that an honorable or general discharge certificate was awarded if the individual being discharged had been awarded a personal decoration. 8. The applicant was awarded four personal decorations, the Soldier's Medal, the Air Medal, the Purple Heart, and the Army Commendation Medal during his period of service. 9. AR 635-212 stated an individual separated by reason of unsuitability was furnished an honorable or general discharge certificate as warranted by his military record. 10. The applicant's reduction to private E-1 was based solely on his receiving an undesirable discharge. 11. 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. 12. 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. PTSD is not a likely cause for either premeditated misconduct or misconduct that continues for an extended period of time. 13. The applicant's military service record does not show any indiscipline prior to his service in Vietnam. 14. OTSG stated the poor judgment and reckless behavior consistent with symptoms of PTSD, suggests that he developed PTSD while serving in Vietnam and that this mitigated the misconduct that led to his other than honorable conditions 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) AR20160005790 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160005790 16 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2