IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 26 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160008930 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x____ ____x___ ___x ____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 26 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160008930 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records set forth in Docket Number AR20130012037, dated 27 February 2014. _____________ 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: 26 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160008930 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 prior request for upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to honorable. 2. The applicant states: a. When he came back to the United States from Vietnam, he was given his complete records and told to go, so he went home. He did not know he was supposed to report somewhere else. He never received any paperwork. A few months later he found out he was considered absent without leave (AWOL) and taken back to Fort Dix, NJ. b. After a few months at Fort Dix, NJ, he was discharged. When he received the discharge, he didn't know what to do about it. He was not very educated, as he never finished high school and was drafted into the Army. He didn't know he could have tried to have his discharge changed. This was the 1970s and life was very different for him back them. He was trying to keep from going crazy as a result of how very hard it was in Vietnam and everything he witnessed and had to do. He still has trouble with the memories. He received the Bronze Star Medal in Vietnam. c. He filed his initial request in 2013 and he was told to try again a year later; thus, his request for reconsideration. He is 68 years old and it is important to him to have his discharge changed. He hopes his request will be considered. He had a case worker from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in Buffalo who previously helped him and took all of his records because he stated the records belonged to the Army. This time his wife helped him fill out the paperwork because he does not read or write that well. 3. The applicant provides: * three DD Forms 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552) * three DD Forms 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States) CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records that were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in Docket Number AR20130012037 on 27 February 2014. 2. The applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 9 September 1968. 3. His records contain a DA Form 2627-1 (Summarized Record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) showing he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ on 18 January 1969 for being AWOL from his unit at Fort Sill, OK, from 5 January 1969 through 12 January 1969. 4. His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he served in Vietnam from on or about 20 February 1969 through on or about 8 February 1970. He participated in four campaigns during this period. 5. Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division (Airmobile), General Orders Number 854, dated 2 February 1970, awarded him the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious service in connection with ground operations against a hostile force in the Republic of Vietnam from 1 March 1969 through 31 December 1969. 6. His records contain a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 24 September 1971, showing he was charged with being AWOL from his unit at Fort Sill, OK, from 8 March 1970 through 24 September 1971. 7. On 28 September 1971, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation  635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. He consulted with counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions, and the procedures and rights available to him. He elected not to submit statements in his own behalf. 8. On 1 November 1971, the separation authority approved his request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 9. On 19 November 1971, he was discharged accordingly. His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he completed 1 year, 7 months, and 21 days of total active service with 566 days of lost time due to being AWOL. His service was characterized as UOTHC. 10. There is no evidence of record showing he was diagnosed with or treated for any mental or behavioral health conditions during his period of service. 11. There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for a review of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 12. On 27 February 2014, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. 13. The Army Review Boards Agency Medical Advisor/Psychologist provided an advisory opinion on 26 June 2017, which states: a. The applicant's records contain no documentation of any symptoms or behaviors consistent with either post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or any other behavioral health diagnosis. b. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant failed to meet medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) while he was serving on active duty. c. There is no evidence of PTSD or any other boardable behavioral health condition in the applicant's available military records and he did not submit any supporting medical documentation. Based on the information available, there is no evidence the applicant developed PTSD while serving on active duty and that PTSD led to his misconduct. 14. The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion on 15 September 2017 and given an opportunity to submit comments or a 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, in effect at the time, provided that a member who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized sentence included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request could be submitted at any time after charges were preferred. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally appropriate for a Soldier who was discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. However, the separation authority could direct a general discharge if such were merited by the Soldier's overall record during the current enlistment. 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 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. 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. 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); and (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, and (6) sleep disturbance. f. Criterion F – Duration: Persistence of symptoms (in Criteria B, C, D, and E) for more than 1 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. 5. 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 that 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. 6. 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. 7. Board for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NR) 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? 8. 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 applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation  635-200, chapter 10. Discharges under the provisions of chapter 10 are voluntary requests for discharge from the Army to avoid trial by court-martial. The evidence shows he accepted NJP for being AWOL from his unit for 7 days in 1969 and was subsequently charged with being AWOL again from 8 March 1970 through 24 September 1971, accumulating 566 days of lost time in less than 2 years of service. These are offenses punishable under the UCMJ that could have resulted in a punitive discharge. 2. He consulted with counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial and the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ. Subsequent to receiving legal counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. 3. The evidence shows he was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time, all requirements of law and regulations were met, and his rights were not fully protected throughout the separation process. The characterization of service he received was commensurate with the reason for his discharge. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. He was awarded the Bronze Star Medal on 2 February 1970 for meritorious service in connection with ground operations against a hostile force in the Republic of Vietnam from 1 March 1969 through 31 December 1969. Although the applicant claims he was trying to keep from going crazy as a result of everything he witnessed and had to do in Vietnam, there is no evidence of record and he has not provided evidence any showing he was ever diagnosed with or treated for PTSD or any other mental or behavioral health condition during or after his military service. 7. The Army Review Boards Agency Medical Advisor/Psychologist found no evidence of PTSD or any other behavioral health condition that led to his misconduct or would support a change to the character or reason for his 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) AR20160008930 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160008930 10 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2