RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-00981

	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS:

His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general or honorable. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS:

The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) diagnosed him with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as the result of his service in Vietnam.  When he originally returned from Vietnam he went absent without leave (AWOL) three times, but he always came back.  That is why he only received a UOTHC discharge.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:  The applicant initially entered active duty on 10 Jan 68.

The applicant’s commander preferred Court-martial charges against him for going AWOL.  He went AWOL from 24 Jul 71 through 15 Aug 71, 20 Sep 71 through 26 Sep 71, 18 Oct 71 through 16 Nov 71, and 22 Nov 71 through 23 Nov 71.  He began pre-trial confinement on 24 Nov 71.

On 26 Nov 71, the applicant requested discharge for the good of the service, and acknowledged his request may result in an undesirable discharge and deprive him of Veteran’s benefits.  

On 15 Dec 71, the applicant received an UOTHC discharge, after serving three years, nine months, and five days of active service. 

On 10 Aug 81, the Discharge Review Board (DRB) considered the applicant’s appeal to upgrade his discharge to honorable, but determined his UOTHC discharge was appropriate.  

On 3 Sep 14, the Secretary of Defense (SecDEF) issued guidance to the Boards for Correction of Military Records concerning request for discharge upgrades for veterans claiming PTSD.  This guidance was further clarified by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (OUSD) in a memo dated 25 Aug 17.  The guidance memorandum stated it has “been extremely difficult to document conditions that form a basis for mitigation in punitive, administrative, or other legal actions or to establish a nexus between PTSD and the misconduct underlying the Service member’s discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.”  The memorandum included attached guidance, which stated, in part, “Liberal consideration will also be given in cases where civilian providers confer diagnoses of PTSD or PTSD-related conditions, when case records contain narratives that support symptomatology at the time of service, or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that PTSD or PTSD-related disorder existed at the time of discharge which might have mitigated the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service.” 

On 28 Sep 17, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has not received any clemency information from the applicant. (Exhibit C)

On 17 Jan 18, the DVA notified the applicant his service was not considered honorable for DVA purposes, and he was still ineligible for DVA benefits.  

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits D, E, and F.

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The AFBCMR Medical Advisor recommends upgrading the applicant’s discharge to General (Under Honorable Conditions).  There is no evidence America’s war efforts in Vietnam had a direct bearing on the applicant’s behavior during his military service, as stated in current claims for PTSD.  The precipitant of the applicant’s misconduct, while it may have a behavioral foundation, appears to be more directed at his displeasure with the timing of his promotion, observations others were being allowed to separate via an early-out program, and possible mounting interpersonal problems following his return to CONUS at Hamilton AFB, CA.  The applicant chose an “inappropriate maladaptive method” for achieving his desires; but without an interview making a diagnosis would be highly speculative.  The applicant has suffered the consequences of his misadventures long enough, and with “liberal consideration” of the evidence or lack thereof, should be granted the benefit of the care he needs through the DVA.  Recommend the Board’s favorable consideration of an upgrade of discharge characterization to General (Under Honorable conditions), based upon Clemency [sic]; notwithstanding the use of ‘liberal consideration’ of a possible undiagnosed or non-diagnosable mental disorder influencing the applicant’s maladaptive behavior at the time; following what appeared to have been an otherwise very promising career.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

The AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor recommends upgrading the applicant’s discharge to General (Under Honorable Conditions).  After review of the case file, this psychiatric consultant fully concurs with the thorough advisory of the medical consult.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit E.

The second AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisory recommends upgrading the applicant’s discharge to General (Under Honorable Conditions).  Concur in total with the medical advisor who opined the applicant chose a “maladaptive method for achieving his desires.”  Under liberal consideration, there is sufficient information to speculate other factors came to play in the coping style of this applicant at the time of his actions and, therefore, he should not be further penalized denying him the care he requires from the DVA.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit F.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The Board sent copies of the Air Force evaluations to the applicant for comment (Exhibit G), and the applicant replied on 13 Feb 18.  In his response, the applicant reiterates his duty performance dropped dramatically after returning from Vietnam, and the DVA has now diagnosed him with PTSD.  In addition, he asks the Board to give his request for an honorable discharge their highest consideration.  The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit H.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES:

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion the applicant is the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with recommendations of the Air Force Advisories and finds a preponderance of the evidence substantiates the applicant’s contentions.  However, while the Board notes the AFBCMR Medical advisories recommend upgrading the applicant’s discharge based on clemency, the Board believes a better basis for granting the request is “liberal consideration” as defined in the SecDEF memorandum, Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, date 3 Sep 14 and the OUSD clarification of 25 Aug 17.  Therefore, the Board recommends correcting the applicant’s records as indicated below.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show on 15 December 1971, he received a General (Under Honorable Conditions) Discharge, and was furnished a General (Under Honorable Conditions) Discharge Certificate.  

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2017-00981 in Executive Session on 11 Apr 18:

Panel Chair
Panel Member
Panel Member

All members voted to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 17 Jan 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Letter, AFBCMR, Clemency, dated 28 Sep 17.
Exhibit D:	Advisory, AFBCMR Medical Advisor, dated 2 Feb 18.
Exhibit E:	Advisory, AFBCMR Psychiatric Consultant, dated 9 Feb 18.
Exhibit F:	Advisory, second AFBCMR Psychiatric Consultant, dated 10 Feb 18.
Exhibit G:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, misdated.
Exhibit H:	Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 13 Feb 18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9 for Docket Number BC-2017-00981.