SAMR-RB 27 July 2017 MEMORANDUM FOR Case Management Division, US Army Review Boards Agency, 251 18th Street South, Suite 385, Arlington, VA 22202-3531 SUBJECT: Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings for, AR20160010828 1. Reference the attached Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings, dated 8 June 2017, in which the Board members unanimously recommended partial relief of the applicant's request. 2. I have reviewed the findings, conclusions, and Board member recommendations. I find there is sufficient evidence to grant relief. Therefore, under the authority of Title 1O, United States Code, section 1552, I direct that all Department of the Army Records of the individual concerned be corrected by issuing the applicant a new DD Form 214 for the period ending 8 September 1970 showing his: • character of service as "honorable" • grade, rate or rank as "PFC" • pay grade as "E-3" • date of rank as "2 June 1969" 3. Request necessary administrative action be taken to effect the correction of records as indicated no later than 27 November 2017. Further, request that the individual concerned and counsel, if any, as well as any Members of Congress who have shown interest be advised of the correction and that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records be furnished a copy of the correspondence. BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: Encl Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) BOARD DATE: 8 June 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160010828 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: 8 June 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160010828 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 the applicant's DD Form 214 for the period ending 8 September 1970; and b. issuing the applicant a new DD Form 214 for the period ending 8 September 1970 showing his: * character of service as "general under honorable conditions" * grade, rate or rank as "PFC" * pay grade as "E-3" * date of rank as "2 June 1969" 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 characterization of service to 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: 8 June 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160010828 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 character of service to honorable. 2. He states he suffered from undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) during his military service. He defers to his psychologist. a. The psychologist states that during the applicant's first tour of duty, he received an honorable discharge. Additionally, his records show he demonstrated "excellent" conduct and efficiency throughout his first enlistment. However, during his second enlistment, he was issued a discharge under other than honorable conditions. She quotes the documents provided and maintains the applicant's mental health reports, dated 2 October 1969, specifically reported "no psychiatric history or police contact" prior to his service in Vietnam. It also shows he had a steady decline in his mental functioning, including the use of drugs, two suicide attempts, and a desire to be separated from the Army. b. The psychologist maintains that the applicant's military records cite frequent periods of being absent without leave (AWOL) which took place after the documented military trauma on 18 June 1969. The psychologist quotes the psychological report which indicates "The only thing he wants from the Army is out. He has harmed himself twice in attempts to get out and also related that he goes AWOL for this reason." The psychologist concludes by stating his indiscipline was based on the trauma he suffered on 18 June 1968, which resulted in a drastic change in his behavior. 3. He provides: * statement of law violations, dated 11 April 1967 * court-martial orders, dated 13 December 1968 * 192nd Assault Helicopter Company Historical Records * Psychiatric Evaluation, dated 2 October 1969 * discharge packet for unfitness * DD Forms 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) * DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Administrative Documents * Congressional correspondence * article from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial * Psychologist Statement, dated 14 May 2016 * PTSD Assessment, dated 14 May 2016 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Based on the applicant's claim that he suffers from PTSD, his application is being reviewed under the 2014 Secretary of Defense's guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military Records (BCMR)/Naval Records (NR). 2. The applicant served honorably in the Regular Army (RA) from 28 March 1966 to 10 April 1967 until he was discharged for immediate reenlistment. He held military occupational specialty 62C (Engineer Equipment Missile Mechanic). 3. 11 April 1967, he reenlisted in the RA and he was trained in and awarded MOS 67A (Aircraft Maintenance Crewmember). 4. His DA Form 20 shows he served in Okinawa from 4 October 1966 to 18 April 1967 and IN Vietnam from 28 May 1967 to 23 December 1968. 5. His disciplinary history includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, on: * 27 January 1968 for resisting being lawfully apprehended by an armed forces policeman and being disorderly in uniform in a public place on 19 January 1968 * 1 March 1969 for being AWOL from on or about 6 to 24 February 1969 6. On 12 December 1968, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of sleeping on his post on 4 December 1968. He was sentenced to a reduction to private E-1, a forfeiture of $70 pay 1 month and confinement at hard labor for 30 days. Confinement at hard labor was suspended for 30 days. 7. On 24 April 1969, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 2 to 7 April 1969 and from 8 to 17 April 1969. He was sentenced a forfeiture of $72.00 pay for 3 months and confinement at hard labor for 3 months; however, that portion of the sentence providing for confinement was suspended for 30 days. 8. On 2 June 1969, he was promoted to private first class (PFC)/E-3 (P) (permanent). 9. On 3 June 1970, he underwent a psychiatric evaluation. He was diagnosed as having an emotionally unstable personality, severe, with passive-aggressive features. The psychiatrist determined he was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right, and he could understand and participate in administrative proceedings. He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his chain of command. 10. The applicant record is void of military medical records. 11. On 13 August 1970, while assigned to the Special Processing Detachment, Fort Devens, MA, the applicant's commander recommended that he be discharged from the military with an undesirable discharge. The applicant's election of rights is not available. However, this document shows the applicant was counseled by First Lieutenant G____ on 6 May 1970 and by Captain V____ on 24 May 1970. 12. On 2 September 1970, the separation authority (a brigadier general) directed that the applicant be reduced to private (PVT)/E-1 and discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-212 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unfitness and Unsuitability) for unfitness with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 13. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 8 September 1970 under the provisions of AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), with an other than honorable conditions character of service. He completed 2 years, 7 months, and 25 days of net active service this period. He also had 272 days of lost time due to being AWOL and in confinement. It also shows his rank as PV1/E-1 with an effective date of pay grade listed as 2 September 1970. His DD Form 214 for the period ending 8 September 1970 also shows he was awarded the Air Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, and two overseas bars. 14. There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 15. On 12 December 2016, the ABCMR obtained an advisory opinion from an Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) clinical psychiatrist, who states there is evidence the applicant met the criteria for PTSD during his military service. psychiatrist states: a. The applicant's civilian medical documentation consists of a comprehensive psychological evaluation and several diagnostic medical statements. The psychological evaluation, dated 14 May 2016, diagnoses the applicant with the following behavioral health diagnoses: PTSD, chronic, severe and depression, recurrent, severe without psychotic features. The assessment indicates the applicant was exposed to heavy combat as a result of his position as a helicopter gunner. One specific incident is identified as the index traumatic stressor in the development of the applicant's PTSD. This traumatic incident occurred on 18 June 1968. At that time, one of the applicant's friends was ordered by the commanding officer to fly in a helicopter that the friend knew had mechanical issues. b. Once airborne, the helicopter exploded and the applicant's friend was killed. The applicant reports he and his fellow Soldiers were required to go to the crash site to retrieve the body parts of the men killed in the helicopter. The applicant states he changed after this occurred. He became very angry with his command and authority figures in general; he felt guilty he did nothing to save his friend; and he felt "very frightened." According to this assessment, the applicant made two suicide attempts after his return from Vietnam. The applicant continues to experience the following symptoms of PTSD: Intrusive daily memories of the trauma, distressing dreams, poor sleep, mood instability, hyperarousal, hypervigilance, increased startle reflex, avoidance of anything military, a negative view of himself and the world, and anhedonia. c. A review of the diagnostic medical statement submitted by the applicant indicate he was initially diagnosed with PTSD in 1995. He was again diagnosed with PTSD and major depressive disorder, recurrent, in 2001. d. A review of his military personnel files indicates he originally enlisted in the Army to go to Vietnam. After arriving in Vietnam, he was found to be 17 years old and was reassigned to Okinawa until he was 18 years of age. He was then returned to Vietnam where he initially worked as a generator operator and a truck driver. He saw no combat during this initial tour. He extended his tour in Vietnam and became a door gunner on a helicopter. His performance evaluations prior to and during his time in Vietnam are all rated "Excellent" in both the Conduct and the Efficiency categories. After returning from Vietnam, however, his performance ratings in the conduct category decline considerably, ranging from "good" in March 1969 to "poor" in June 1969. e. A Military Psychiatric Evaluation, dated 2 October 1969, diagnoses the applicant with "Emotionally unstable personality with passive aggressive features." The evaluation notes that the applicant began going AWOL only after he returned from Vietnam. A second Military Psychiatric Evaluation, dated 3 June 1970, performed at Fort Devens, MA, echoes the first psychiatric evaluation and states the applicant is unable to benefit from rehabilitation. There is no indication the applicant failed to meet retention standards in accordance with AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) and following the provisions set forth in AR 635-40 (Personnel Separation Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) that were in effect at the time. f. His military records are void of any documentation of PTSD symptoms. However, the lack of documentation of PTSD symptoms in the applicant's military records does not necessarily indicate he did not have PTSD while on active duty. During the applicant's military service, PTSD symptoms were frequently not recognized. Oftentimes, in these cases, the presence of PTSD has to be inferred from behavioral indicators. Such is the case with this applicant. A review of the applicant's military record reveals he was a very good, enthusiastic Soldier with excellent performance ratings in both Conduct and Efficiency prior to and during his tenure in Vietnam. Once returning stateside, however, his mental functioning began to deteriorate as indicated by his declining performance evaluations and his recurrent incidents of AWOL. g. This history of good performance and lack of significant disciplinary problems followed by a history of poor performance and repetitive AWOLs is not uncommon in Soldiers suffering from PTSD. In the applicant's case, this pattern of behavior reflects the psychological distress he felt by constantly being reminded about his experiences in Vietnam. By going AWOL, he was avoiding the triggers that caused him to remember the unbearable pain of his traumatic experiences in Vietnam. h. Based on the information available at this time, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the applicant had undiagnosed PTSD while on active duty. Since PTSD can be associated with avoidant behaviors, there is a nexus between the applicant's PTSD and the misconduct (recurrent incidents of being absent without leave) which led to his under other than honorable conditions discharge. REFERENCES: 1. AR 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability. It stated an individual was subject to separation for unfitness due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. When separation for unfitness was warranted, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate. 2. AR 635-200 provides policy and procedures for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. 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. b. 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. 3. 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." 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 DSM fifth revision (DSM-5) 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. 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 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. 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 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 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 evidence of record shows the applicant was convicted by a summary and a special courts-martial, he received two NJPs, and had 272 days of lost time due to being AWOL and in confinement at the time of discharge. Further the record shows he was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by chain of command. There was no evidence of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. 2. At the time of the applicant's discharge, PTSD was 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. 3. On 16 May 2014, he was evaluated and a psychologist diagnosed him with PTSD. Additionally, the advising psychiatrist states there is likely a nexus between his PTSD and the misconduct which led to his separation from the Army. The diagnosis of PTSD would be considered mitigating for his AWOL offenses. 4. Soldiers who suffered from PTSD and were separated solely for misconduct subsequent to a traumatic event or experiences warrant careful consideration for the possible recharacterization of their overall service. 5. A decision to grant relief by upgrading the character of his service to general under honorable conditions would also entail restoration of his rank/grade to PFC/E3 with an effective date of 2 June 1969. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160010828 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160010828 10 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2