BOARD DATE: 7 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160013184 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 BOARD DATE: 7 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160013184 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 for correction of the records of the individual concerned. ___________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: 7 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160013184 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 upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge. 2. The applicant states that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) denied his petition on 26 October 2005. Since that time he has been in continuous therapy and counseling related to trauma he experienced in Vietnam. He completed the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Alcohol Treatment Program at Menlo Park, CA. He then attended the PTSD Residential Treatment Program, but was dismissed because of his anger issues. He continued with counseling in an out-patient status. a. He states there are three important incidents that are not part of his military medical records. One incident occurred a couple of months before his (12 April 1974) discharge. He was found unconscious by the County Sheriff on the beach near Fort Ord, CA. He awoke in the Fort Ord Military Hospital after having tried to commit suicide by carbon monoxide poisoning from his car exhaust. Another incident occurred in January 1974 while he was absent without leave (AWOL). He was admitted to the State Mental Health Hospital in Stockton, CA, for a period of about 5 days. Still another incident occurred when he had a mental breakdown in the mess hall at Sharpe Army Depot in Stockton, CA. He was taken to the hospital at Presidio of San Francisco, CA. He states he did not receive mental health counseling following any of the incidents. b. He refers to a statement by the Board in the original consideration of his case ("When separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual's entire record [applicant's emphasis]."). He states that since he never received any of his Army Health Records (despite numerous attempts), a review of his entire record was not possible. He refers to the Board's statement, "Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual." c. He states a review of his entire record would have included the following: * award of the Silver Star – he was sent to the medical triage as a psychiatric casualty * commander's statement, "EM's [enlisted member's] behavior is not intentional, but is due to an incapacity within the meaning of unsuitability." * he was never offered rehabilitation, either for his alcoholism or for the [unrecognized at the time] PTSD from his service in Vietnam * promoted to E-4, 1 September 1968 * granted secret security clearance, 25 June 1970 * Army Good Conduct Medal, 20 June 1967 to 19 June 1970 * Enlisted Efficiency Report (EER), January 1970 to July 1970, recommended for – * promotion with contemporaries * advanced schooling and assignment (never acted upon) * EER, August 1970 to October 1971, – * excellent and outstanding duty performance ratings * recommended for promotion ahead of contemporaries * promoted to E-5, 8 December 1971 * excellent conduct and efficiency – 26 June 1967 to 25 May 1971 * Enlisted Evaluation Data Report, August 1971, score: "Very Low" * EER, September 1971 to February 1972 – * excellent and above average duty performance ratings * recommended for formal schooling (not acted upon) * recommended for promotion * U.S. Army Food Service Center, Sharpe Army Depot, Letter of Commendation, dated 11 April 1972 * completed 3rd Armored Division, Noncommissioned Officer Academy, 21 September 1972 * Company B, 23rd Engineer Battalion, 3rd Armored Division, Letter of Appreciation, dated 17 July 1972 * EER, March 1972 to November 1972 – * outstanding and excellent duty performance ratings * recommended for promotion ahead of contemporaries * personnel action, dated 15 December 1972 – * no longer utilized in military occupation specialty (MOS) 12B3O (Combat Engineer) * utilized in MOS 94B2O (Cook) * he challenges the validity of entries on both his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) and DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty), including – * MOS/principal duty entries on his DA Form 20 * item 9a (Authority and Reason), DD Form 214 * item 44 (Time Lost) – 71 days versus item 21 (Time Lost) – 80 days * Personnel Records Action Slip, dated 22 March 1973, indicates no health records were sent to Fort Benjamin Harrison, IN d. He asserts that his entire military service record is not represented in the ABCMR Record of Proceedings. In addition, he challenges the accuracy of the periods of AWOL. Specifically, records on nonjudicial punishment (NJP) charged him with being absent from his place of duty without authority and the period(s) are categorized as AWOL. He questions whether or not the Board conducted a thorough review of his military service records or only a review of his separation action and its enclosures. He concludes that the commander's statement that, "[the applicant] would not respond favorably to further rehabilitative effort" is at the core of his belief that he was unjustly discharged. 3. The applicant provides copies of: * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States), dated 1 July 2016 (summarized above) * a self-authored statement, dated 21 June 2016 (summarized above) * Administrative Discharge Questionnaire * DD Form 214 (Copy 1 and Copy 2) * DA Form 20 * DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form), dated 11 February 1974 * Headquarters, U.S. Army Training Center, Infantry, Fort Ord, CA, letter, dated 9 January 1973 * Personnel Records Action Slip, dated 22 March 1973 * VA medical records COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Counsel requests upgrade of the applicant's general, under honorable conditions discharge. 2. Counsel states he worked as a Certified Peer Counselor at the VA Outpatient Clinic, VA Health Care System, Sonora, CA, from January 2010 through September 2015. During this time the applicant participated in an ever- increasing level of treatment for his PTSD. a. He states the applicant did not complete high school. He enlisted in the U.S. Army (i.e., under "McNamara's One Thousand Program") with a qualifying score three points above the cut-for that allowed the Nation's less educated to become eligible for the draft and enlistment. b. He states the applicant's military medical records have never been available; however, the applicant has attached records of his VA counseling and residential treatment. c. Counsel states the applicant was awarded the Silver Star and came out of a combat, trauma-induced blackout to find himself in the aid station triage tent, along with many other Soldiers. He recounts a conversation [presumably provided by the applicant] between the doctor and a medic in which the doctor referred to the applicant as a "sniveling coward." The applicant felt humiliated and ashamed of himself. He also became the brunt of many jokes among senior noncommissioned officers (NCOs) in the unit. Counsel also recounts an incident in which the applicant was ordered to retrieve an Armored Personnel Carrier (APC) that had been left in the field. Unbeknownst to the applicant, the rear ramp of the APC was loaded with the bodies of Soldiers who had been killed in action. Not being aware of this, the applicant attempted to close the ramp, but it would not close. He faced laugher and jeers from his superiors. d. The applicant returned to the continental United States (CONUS), but he was never referred for mental health care. He reenlisted and it was determined that he was no longer able to function in his primary MOS (PMOS). His records indicate there were attempts to retrain the applicant in MOS 64A1O (Light Vehicle Driver), MOS 94B2O, and MOS 31G2O (Communications Specialist). His supervisors also recommended him for schooling and promotion in the MOSs despite the fact that he had reenlisted with a bonus for PMOS 12B3O, which was a critically short MOS. e. Counsel states the applicant's alcohol use increased in an attempt to block flashbacks from his experiences in Vietnam and to quiet night terrors. As a result, his marriage fell apart. The applicant and his wife were stationed in Germany at the time. His wife returned to CONUS while he was on a field exercise. The applicant believes this was done behind his back, but there is no evidence to support him in his belief. f. Counsel also states that the applicant used alcohol as a means to cope with undiagnosed PTSD. In fact, the commander acknowledged the applicant's behavior was not intentional, but rather due to incapacity within the meaning of "unsuitability." He adds the command's failure to follow-through with any of the promotion/training recommendations and his many reassignments following disciplinary actions, rather than attempts at counseling and rehabilitation, indicate his superiors attempts to get rid of the applicant. Counsel concludes that the U.S. Army was responsible for failing to provide appropriate treatment for the applicant's PTSD. 3. Counsel provides no additional documentary evidence. 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 ABCMR in Docket Number AR20050006209 on 19 October 2005. In addition, all obtainable military service records pertaining to the applicant that are not summarized in this Record of Proceedings are available to the Board for review and consideration. 2. On 13 June 1967, at the age of 17 and with parental consent, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for a period of 3 years. 3. Upon completion of training he was awarded PMOS 12A1O (Pioneer). 4. The applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on two occasions: * on 30 June 1967, for being disrespectful in language toward his superior NCO on 28 June 1967 * on 12 July 1967, for being disrespectful in language and deportment toward his superior commissioned officer and two NCOs on 10 July 1967 5. He served in Vietnam from 9 December 1967 through 8 December 1968. a. Headquarters, 25th Infantry Division, General Orders Number 6381, dated 13 September 1968, awarded the applicant the Silver Star for gallantry in action in the Republic of Vietnam on 30 June 1968. b. He accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ, on 31 July 1968, for carelessly discharging a service rifle in the barracks of Company B, 65th Engineer Battalion, on 29 July 1968. c. He was promoted to specialist four (SP4)/pay grade E-4 on 1 September 1968 and awarded PMOS 12B2O (Combat Engineer). d. He was reassigned to CONUS on 28 January 1969. 6. A DD Form 214 shows the applicant entered active duty this period on 13 June 1967 and he was honorably discharged on 16 March 1969 for the convenience of the government to reenlist in the RA. He had completed 1 year, 9 months, and 4 days of total active service that included in 1 year of foreign service (Vietnam). It also shows in: * item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) – * National Defense Service Medal * Vietnam Service Medal * Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal * 2 Overseas Service Bars * Silver Star * Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle (M-14 and M-16) Bar * item 25 (Education and Training Completed) – * High School, 10 Years * Army Training Program 21-114 * Code of Conduct 7. The applicant reenlisted in the RA on 17 March 1969 for a period of 6 years. 8. He accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ, on 22 September 1969, for violating a post regulation by failing to have his privately owned vehicle registered on post. 9. The applicant served in Germany from 29 April 1970 to 7 January 1973. a. He accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ, on three occasions: * on 27 August 1970, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 26 August 1970 * on 1 October 1970, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 23 September 1970 * on 29 April 1971, for – * without authority, leaving his appointed place of duty on 31 March 1971 * failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1 April 1971 * absenting himself from his unit on 1 April 1971 and remaining absent until 8 April 1971 b. He was promoted to specialist five (SP5)/pay grade E-5 on 8 December 1971 in PMOS 12B3O and also awarded secondary MOS 94B2O. c. He accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ, on 3 July 1972, for – * without authority, absenting himself from his place of duty on 2 July 1972 * willfully disobeying a lawful command from a commissioned officer on 3 July 1972 10. The applicant was reassigned to CONUS on 8 January 1973. 11. He accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ, on two occasions: * on 25 June 1973, for, without authority, absenting himself from his unit from 11 June 1973 to 12 June 1973 * on 1 February 1974, for, without authority, absenting himself from his unit from 4 January 1974 to 25 January 1974; he was reduced grade of E-4 12. The applicant's records contain a DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record). The DA Form 20 provides a summary of information pertaining to the applicant's record of military service that includes personal identifier information, pertinent civilian information, dependent information, and significant items related to his military service. Some of the information recorded is permanent (i.e., it does not change and is recorded in ink or typed) and some of the information is temporary (i.e., it is recorded in pencil and updated, as required). The applicant reviewed his DA Form 20 on 8 January 1974. 13. A DA Form 2496, subject: Non-Drug Dependency Statement, dated 11 February 1974, shows the applicant was evaluated to determine drug dependency and he was found not to be drug dependent at the time. 14. Headquarters, Headquarters Command, U.S. Army Training Center (USATC), Fort Ord, CA, Summary Court-Martial (SCM) Order, Number 11, dated 28 March 1974, shows the applicant was tried by a SCM. a. He pled guilty to and was found guilty of violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, for without authority, absenting himself from his organization from 10 February 1974 to 10 March 1974. b. On 27 March 1974, he was sentenced to be reduced to private first class (PFC)/pay grade E-3. c. On 28 March 1974, the SCM Convening Authority approved the sentence and ordered it executed. 15. The applicant's DA Form 20 shows in item 44 (Time Lost Under Section 972, Title 10, U.S. Code): * AWOL (1 April 1971 through 7 April 1971) – 7 Days * AWOL (4 January 1974 through 24 January 1974) – 21 Days * AWOL (10 February 1974 through 9 March 1974) – 28 Days * Imprisonment (12 March 1974 through 26 March 1974) – 15 Days 16. On 1 April 1974, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of (UP) Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, for unsuitability due to his apathy, defective attitudes, and inability to expend effort constructively. The applicant was advised of his rights and the separation procedures involved. a. The commander noted his counseling efforts and also that the applicant's record shows frequent incidents of discreditable nature, which he referenced in six records of NJP for AWOL. He attached copies of the applicant's counseling statements, NJP, and psychiatric evaluation as enclosures. b. He stated, "Inasmuch as Soldier's rehabilitation and/or development into a satisfactory Soldier is deemed unlikely, it is requested that the approving authority waive any requirement which may exist in this case concerning rehabilitation by further counseling, reassignment, or both." 17. The applicant acknowledged he had been advised by consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects, the rights available to him, and the effect of a waiver of his rights. a. He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers. b. He waived a personal appearance before an administrative separation board. c. He indicated that he would not submit statements in his own behalf. d. He acknowledged that military legal counsel for consultation was available to assist him; however, he waived representation by counsel. e. He was advised he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in the event a general, under honorable conditions discharge was issued to him. f. The applicant and counsel (a staff judge advocate officer) each placed their signature on the document. 18. The chain of command recommended approval of the separation action. 19. The separation authority waived rehabilitative transfer requirements and approved the commander's recommendation for discharge of the applicant for unsuitability with a General Discharge Certificate. 20. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he entered active duty this period on 17 March 1969 and he was discharged on 12 April 1974 UP AR 635-200, chapter 13. He had completed 4 years, 10 months, and 15 days of net active service this period that included 3 years and 3 days of foreign service (Germany); 1 year, 9 months, and 4 days of prior active service; and 6 years, 7 months, and 19 days of total active service. It also shows in: * item 21 (Time Lost): 80 Days * item 26 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) – * National Defense Service Medal * Vietnam Service Medal * Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal * Silver Star * Army Good Conduct Medal * Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar * item 27 (Remarks) – * Military Education – * Pioneer * NCO Academy * Days Lost Under Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 972: * 7 Days: 1 April 1971 through 7 April 1971 * 21 Days: 4 January 1974 through 24 January 1974 * 28 Days: 10 February 1974 through 9 March 1974 * 15 Days: 12 March 1974 through 26 March 1974 * item 29 (Signature of Person Being Separated), the applicant's signature 21. A review of the applicant's military personnel records failed to reveal evidence that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 22. In support of his application the applicant provides the following documents not previously considered in this Record of Proceedings: a. Administrative Discharge Questionnaire completed by the applicant as a worksheet for use in the preparation of his application to the ABCMR. b. Headquarters, USATC, Infantry, Fort Ord, CA, letter, dated 9 January 1973, addressed to the Commander, U.S. Army Personnel Service Support Center, Fort Benjamin Harrison, IN, that shows a request for a reconstructed copy of the applicant's records was requested. c. Personnel Records Action Slip, dated 22 March 1973, that shows The Adjutant General provided a copy of the applicant's Military Personnel Records Jacket to the Commander, USATC, Infantry, Fort Ord, CA. d. VA medical records (with significant issues highlighted) that show, in pertinent part, he was diagnosed with PTSD. Additional information pertaining to the results of a review of the available medical records by a medical professional is provided in paragraph 23, below. 23. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the medical staff, Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA), dated 13 December 2016. a. The ARBA staff psychologist noted that he was asked to determine if the available records reasonably support PTSD (or other boardable behavioral health (BH) conditions) existed at the time of the applicant's military service; if the condition(s) failed medical retention standards in accordance with AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) warranting separation through medical channels; is/are the condition(s) a mitigating factor in the misconduct that resulted in his discharge from military service; was the required medical examination, which includes a BH component, conducted prior to administrative separation; and any additional information deemed appropriate. b. The opinion is based on the information provided by the ABCMR and the applicant (in his application with enclosures). Medical records were not available in the Department of Defense (DoD) electronic medical record (AHLTA) and the limited review of VA records through the Joint Legacy Viewer. He found that the applicant has had treatment with the VA for PTSD, but he has difficulty completing treatment because of his irritability. c. The staff psychologist noted the applicant served a tour in Vietnam from 9 December 1967 to 8 December 1968 and he was awarded the Silver Star for heroism. When he returned to CONUS, he had a poor adjustment and began to exhibit symptoms consistent with his subsequent VA diagnosis of PTSD. His service after Vietnam deteriorated and was marked by repeated NJP for AWOL and a SCM for AWOL, which culminated in his discharge for unsuitability based on apathy. d. He noted the applicant stated that he made a suicide attempt and had a hospitalization after his return from Vietnam. The types of difficulties he had after combat service, and his subsequent drinking, irritability, depression, apathy, and general inability to adjust to life are a familiar pattern for combat veterans with untreated PTSD. To the extent these symptoms of emotional dysregulation led to his general, under honorable conditions discharge rather than an honorable discharge, it appears reasonable to mitigate them. However, it should be noted that given the quality of the applicant's post-Vietnam service, he may well have had leniency extended when he received a general discharge, rather than a discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC). e. He found the available records do not reasonably support the applicant having had a boardable medical condition at the time of his discharge. The applicant did meet standards in AR 40-501 and AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation); his PTSD does mitigate the misconduct that is in his record; available case material did include a medical examination; and the case meets standards for mitigation of misconduct that occurred after Vietnam service. He added it is impossible to tell from available records whether the applicant's mental status at the time of his discharge, as well as his record of heroism, earned him greater leniency than ordinary at the time the character of his discharge was determined. f. The ARBA staff psychologist concluded that the applicant met medical retention standards in accordance with AR 40-501, chapter 3, and following the provisions of AR 635-40 that were applicable to the applicant's era of service. The applicant's medical conditions were duly considered during his medical separation processing. In addition, a review of available documentation did find evidence of a mental health condition(s) which would support a change to the character of the discharge in this case. A nexus between the applicant's misconduct and his mental health condition was discovered; however, this is not a misconduct case. 24. On 14 December 2016, the applicant was provided a copy of the ARBA advisory opinion to allow him the opportunity to submit comments or a rebuttal. 25. On 5 January 2017, the applicant provided a response and thanked the medical advisor for finding and concluding that his case is not a misconduct case. Especially that he found a connection between the applicant's conduct (post-Vietnam) and his mental health condition, and that evidence is present that his mental health condition(s) are supportive of a change to the characterization of his service. He requests the Board grant his request to upgrade the character of his service to honorable. REFERENCES: 1. 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." 2. 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. 3. 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, along with 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. 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 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 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. 5. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards 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 applicant's 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 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 UOTHC 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 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. 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. 8. AR 635-200 sets forth the policy and prescribes the procedures for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 13, in effect at that time, provided for separation of enlisted members found to be unfit or unsuitable for further military service. Separation action would be taken when, in the commander's judgment, the individual would not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further military training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. A Soldiers separated because of unsuitability were furnished an honorable or a general, under honorable conditions discharge, as warranted by his/her military record and as directed by the convening authority. b. Chapter 3, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. 9. AR 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. The regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends that his records should be corrected to show he was honorably discharged based on his (then undiagnosed) PTSD because his entire military service record was not considered at the time of his discharge nor in the original consideration of his case by the ABCMR and, therefore, it was unjust. 2. There is a presumption of administrative regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs. This presumption can be applied to any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. a. In this instance, the "presumption of regularity" applies to differences the applicant identifies in certain entries on his DA Form 20 as compared to his DD Form 214. The two documents are summaries of information, and it is acknowledged that some information may not have been updated on the DA Form 20 at the time his DD Form 214 was issued on 12 April 1974. b. It is noted that the applicant last reviewed his DA Form 20 for accuracy on 8 January 1972, whereas he reviewed and signed his DD Form 214 on 12 April 1974. Thus, the presumption is that the two forms were properly prepared and correct in accordance with the regulations in effect at that time and upon their review by the applicant. 3. The applicant's contention that he was recommended for promotions, military training, and assignments, but the recommendations were not acted upon by his superiors is acknowledged. However, recommendations for promotion, military training, and assignment are precisely that, recommendations. The process of actually selecting and approving a Soldier for promotion, military training, and/or an assignment is based upon requirements, authorizations, and available quotas, along with the Soldier's competitive standing among contemporaries who are also competing for those career enhancements. Thus, the fact that the applicant did not receive a promotion, military training, and/or an assignment following a recommendation does not necessarily mean that his superiors/chain of command did not consider and/or act on the recommendation. 4. Records show the applicant served in Vietnam from 9 December 1968 to 8 December 1968. a. He was issued a DD Form 214 documenting his honorable active duty service during the period 13 June 1967 through 16 March 1969. b. He reenlisted in the RA on 17 March 1969. 5. The evidence of record shows he experienced wartime events during the period of service under review. a. The applicant was diagnosed with PTSD. b. The ARBA staff psychologist found no evidence that the applicant failed to meet medical retention standards applicable to the applicant's era of service. c. He found the applicant's medical conditions were duly considered during his medical separation processing. However, he found evidence of mental health conditions which would support a change to the character of the applicant's discharge in this case. 6. On 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards and 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. An upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions offers the former Soldier eligibility for veterans' benefits. a. The applicant was not administratively discharged UOTHC; he was administrative discharged under honorable conditions. b. In that the applicant does not seek to upgrade an UOTHC administrative discharge, the Secretary of Defense's, 3 September 2014, memorandum is not controlling in this case. 7. The evidence of record shows: a. An honorable or a general under honorable conditions discharge was authorized for personnel separated for unsuitability due to apathy, defective attitudes, and inability to expend effort constructively. b. During the period of service under review: * the applicant received NJP on seven occasions that included – * failing to have his privately owned vehicle registered on post * failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (three occurrences) * being absent from his appointed place of duty (two occurrences) * absenting himself (AWOL) from his unit (two occurrences) * disobeying a lawful command from a commissioned officer * he was reduced from SP5 (E-5) to SP4 (E-4) * he was tried and convicted by SCM of being AWOL * he was reduced from SP4 (E-4) to PFC (E-3) c. Based on the applicant's repeated acts of indiscipline, the chain of command recommended the applicant's overall service be characterized as general, under honorable conditions. d. In view of the foregoing, it is reasonable to conclude that the applicant's entire record of service, including his heroism for which he was awarded the Silver Star and his mitigating mental health diagnosis, were considered by his chain of command, including the separation authority who directed the applicant's service be characterized as under honorable conditions. 8. 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160013184 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160013184 18 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2