IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 February 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140008850 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, in effect, reconsideration of his previous request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD) to an honorable discharge due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 2. The applicant states: a. He was treated unjustly at Fort Carson, CO, after returning from Vietnam with PTSD. He was a helicopter door gunner with a crew chief military occupational specialty (MOS). He served his country bravely, earning eight awards of the Air Medal (AM) and a Bronze Star Medal. At Fort Carson, he attempted to get help for his mental problem, but received none. With no counsel of any kind he was later discharged for being absent without leave (AWOL) for a very short period of time. He feels PTSD was the reason for his actions and he is requesting an upgrade. b. He has been trying to get his discharge upgraded since 1976. Without an honorable discharge the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) cannot represent him. It's a catch 22. With PTSD being the reason for his actions and after receiving no assistance during his period of service in the Army, he feels he was treated unjustly. c. Throughout the earlier appeal process, he did not realize that his service records were not complete (no notation of the eight awards of the AM). He located the missing records to show that he was awarded these awards for meritorious achievement when flying helicopter missions in Vietnam. Those records show that he served honorably until the Army assigned him to a unit to which he was not qualified. d. A long-time friend, now retired from the Marine Corps, moved to his area of Oregon. In working on community projects together, this friend became interested in his case. The friend recommended he contact a friend of his who still resided in Arlington, VA. That friend, being a retired Army lieutenant colonel and a former helicopter pilot who served in Vietnam, is now an attorney. e. As suggested, he contacted the attorney to seek his help. The attorney was also a psychologist and reviewed his records and the records reviewed in his earlier request for an upgrade. The attorney discovered there were no records of the medals he was awarded while serving and flying helicopter combat missions in Vietnam. Attorney Mxxxxx also verified that the records he had were incomplete after receiving an official copy of his [the applicant] official military personnel file (OMPF) from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) which showed that the previously used official records were indeed incomplete. f. Attorney Mxxxxx, who flew over 400 hours of combat time, knows from his own personal experience that he [applicant] should have been awarded AMs for his combat flying. Attorney Mxxxxx requested he [applicant] search for any photographs of him in Vietnam or any award ceremonies, citations, or orders that showed he had been honored for his combat flying. He was able to finally locate some papers he had kept as a reminder that he was once a Soldier. g. The lack of recording the eight awards of the AM on his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) is an error that only can be rectified by an upgrade of the UD to an honorable discharge. Those records show he served in Vietnam, flew combat missions on a daily basis, and logged over 400 hours of combat time. h. As the war came to a close, he returned to the United States to live in a warehouse while being shunned by the troops that he worked with and cowardly abused by the public who shamed him openly when he was recognized as a Soldier. He went from being a highly-skilled combat-tested aviation mechanic, crew chief, and door gunner to an assistant motor pool worker for track vehicles (armored personnel carrier). He was not trained as a track vehicle mechanic. In fact, he had never seen a track vehicle before being assigned to repair that type of vehicle. i. The Army failed by not accurately including all of his records in his OMPF which resulted in him not receiving any support or medical care after returning to the United States which would have assisted him in readjusting to a non-combat role in the Army and with the disciplinary action taken against him by the military by not having the records necessary to prove that his service was honorable. j. The long-term view by the Army was that there was no such thing as PTSD. That term came to be after later wars and is now recognized as a massive killer of veterans by suicide. This may explain what caused him to do what he did after being returned to the United States following his combat tour in Vietnam. He is now able to show he served honorably when it really counted, and he is now making this appeal. k. When the Army makes such a critical mistake, the Army should not deny the mistake or ignore the mistakes to the detriment of the Soldier. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there may be mitigating circumstances that will permit an action after the time has expired in the interest of justice. The error was discovered by his attorney who wrote to the NPRC and verified his service OMPF proved that those AMs were not recorded in his OMPF and were not considered in the disciplinary action taken against him. l. The error of omission on the part of the Army discovered by his attorney is sufficient to meet the requirement of satisfactory showing by the evidence that the omission of records was in error and is proven by the copies of the actual orders awarding the 8 AMs. It is therefore extremely important for the Board to reconsider its earlier decision and find that he had met the burden of proof necessary for an upgrade of his UD to an honorable discharge. It has taken the Army years to learn that PTSD was a major illness that required early recognition and treatment which in severe cases individual have committed suicide as in what happened to the Soldiers returning from the Desert Storm, Iraq, and Afghanistan wars. m. The Vietnam veterans were dumped back into society. Some were sent to the best Soldier hospitals in the world. For years wounded Soldiers were warehoused just as he was. The Army's lack of recognition and treatment of PTSD caused a national disgrace to Walter Reed Army Medical Center for their lack of interest of the warrior Soldiers. He received the same type of treatment by the Army, discarded and forgotten. It has taken years for the Army to recognize his symptoms as a wartime injury. n. Due to his lack of an advanced education and residing in an isolated small town, he had no significant contact with other veterans until he began the process of requesting an honorable discharge. He is requesting reconsideration of his appeal because of the injustice he has suffered for many years. 3. The applicant provides copies of the following: * DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record), pages 2-4 * 1971 Honorable Discharge Certificate * Special Orders (SO) Number 45 * SO Number 314 (front page) * General Orders (GO) Number 576 * GO Number 1755 (front page) * DD Form 214 * Army Board for Correction of Military Record (ABCMR) Record of Proceedings (ROP) * United States Supreme Court Syllabus for Henderson v. Secretary of the VA * letter from the NPRC * his statement * two character reference letters COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE: 1. Counsel requests, in effect, reconsideration of the applicant's previous request for an upgrade of the applicant's UD to an honorable discharge. 2. Counsel states: a. In effect, he is attaching military orders, not contained or mentioned on the applicant's DD Form 214 or his DA Form 20 or any other official records reviewed by the previous Board, to show the error of omission was fatal to the previous application. The DD Form 214 and the DA Form 20 requires the Services to record decorations, medals, badges, commendations, citations, and campaign ribbon awarded or authorized. Each record requires an entry which was not made. The omitted records show the applicant's service was meritorious to the extent his UD should be upgraded to an honorable discharge. b. The Board also discounted the excellent conduct ratings that the applicant received from the day he entered the service on 24 February 1971 through 23 April 1972 which included part of the time he served as a track vehicle mechanic. The excellent conduct was shown on the DA Form 20 that was contained in the records, but ignored by the first Board. Thereafter, the applicant's life unraveled to the extent he was discharged as being undesirable. c. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Henderson v. Secretary of the VA (attached) that the deadline established by the agency was not jurisdictional and as a result the VA Board was permitted to consider cases beyond the specified date of cut-off in certain cases based on the interest of justice or injustice or error in the records. d. The applicant's previous case was submitted, considered, and denied on 2 October 2006. The Board denied the applicant's application as being without merit and insufficient to be granted in the interest of justice. Therefore, the Board denied the applicant by holding the 3-year statute of limitations as controlling. e. The applicant's official record relied on by the Board was clearly deficient in content because the DD Form 214 and DA Form 20 did not show and did not contain the orders showing the eight awards of the AM for meritorious service achievement while participating in aerial flight for 396 hours in combat conditions. The absence of the orders reflecting his awards caused the Board to conclude his record of service was undistinguished and stated as such in two of the factors considered by the Board. The orders currently being provided show the applicant's short period of service was meritorious and therefore is sufficient for the Board to grant an upgrade of his UD to an honorable discharge. f. Additionally, PTSD is now recognized to be closely associated with the ills of combat veterans. The applicant's case shows a life of good behavior, hard work, dutiful husband, and a willing volunteer for the good of his small town, all of which is recognized by his friends and family. They cannot say with absolute certainty why the applicant's life became so unraveled for a few weeks just after he returned from his combat tour in Vietnam, but the history of PTSD certainly shows his life was adversely changed in a few short months after that tour of duty. Those facts coupled with the errors or omission made by the Army should be enough to grant an upgrade of his UD. 3. Counsel provides a statement in support of all airmen and their inherent risk flying in combat and combat support missions in Vietnam and a statement from the applicant. 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 AR20060000055 on 28 September 2006. 2. On 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Board for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully considered the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical consideration, and mitigating factors when taking actions on application from former service members administratively discharged and who had 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. As a result, the applicant's request will be considered by the Board. 3. The applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 23 February 1971. He was honorably discharged on 1 March 1971 for the purpose of enlisting in the Regular Army (RA). He provided a copy of SO Number 45, dated 2 March 1971, honorably discharging him from active duty on 1 March 1971. 4. He enlisted in the RA on 2 March 1971. He completed advanced individual training and was awarded MOS 67N (UH/1 Helicopter Repairman). 5. He served in Vietnam from 30 August 1971 through 9 March 1972, during two campaigns. He was assigned to the 227th and 3rd Aviation Companies. 6. His records contain and he also provided copies of the following: * SO Number 314, dated 10 November 1971, announcing his status as a non-aviator crewmember with an effective date of 5 October 1971 * GO Number 576, dated 23 February 1972, awarding him the AM for meritorious achievement while participating in aerial flight in Vietnam from 3 through 20 October 1971 7. Item 38 (Record of Assignments) of his DA Form 20 shows he was assigned to Service Battery, 6th Battalion, 20th Artillery, Fort Carson, CO, on 23 April 1972 and he served in MOS 63C (track vehicle mechanic). 8. On 31 May 1972, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for absenting himself from his unit from 26 through 30 May 1972. 9. His records contain and he provided a copy of GO Number 1755, dated 19 June 1972, awarding him the 2nd through 8th award of AM for meritorious achievement while participating in aerial flight in Vietnam from 20 October 1971 through 20 February 1972. 10. On 8 November 1972, a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) was completed by the Commander, U.S. Army Personnel Control Facility, Fort Carson, CO. The applicant was charged with two specifications of being AWOL from 8 June through 13 July 1972 and from 17 July through 7 August 1972. 11. On 9 November 1972, after consulting with counsel, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separation, Enlisted Separations), chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court-martial for charges being preferred against him. He acknowledged he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) and furnished an UD Certificate and the result of the issuance of such a discharge. He waived his rights and elected to submit a statement in his own behalf. 12. In his statement, dated 10 November 1972, the applicant stated he was making the following statements voluntarily and of his own free will. He also stated that his attitude towards the Army was poor. He was a man of his own mind and he didn't like the Army telling him every last thing to do. He had no rehabilitative potential. He felt that the discharge would not affect his future and he was willing to accept the discharge. He felt that the Army was too hard in many respects. 13. On 10 November 1972, the applicant's company commander recommended approval of the applicant's discharge. He stated the applicant's conduct and efficiency were unsatisfactory. During the interview, the applicant assured him that he desired to be discharged. There was no evidence or mental deficiency or underlying emotional disturbance. 14. A DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 16 November 1972, shows the examining psychiatrist found no psychiatric disorder and the applicant was medically cleared for separation. 15. In an interview statement, dated 22 November 1972, the applicant's battalion commander stated that the applicant returned from Vietnam with an aviator MOS which he had enlisted for, but he was assigned to a motor pool. A job he knew nothing about, so he went AWOL. The applicant was very weak willed, immature, and would continue to go AWOL if returned to duty. The applicant's poor attitude towards continued service prohibited rehabilitation in the Army. 16. On 22 November 1972, the applicant's chain of command recommended approval of the applicant's request and recommended the issuance of an UD. 17. On 5 December 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request and directed the issuance of an UD and reduction to pay grade E-1. 18. He was discharged accordingly on 6 June 1973. He was credited with completing 2 years, 1 month, and 8 days of active service and 60 days of time lost. His character of service was UOTHC and he was issued an UD Certificate. His DD Form 214 lists the: * National Defense Service Medal * Vietnam Service Medal with one bronze service star * Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device 1960 * Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16) * one overseas service bar 19. His DA Form 20 shows in: * Item 38 (Record of Assignments) he received "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings between 8 March 1971 through 25 May 1972 * Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) all the awards listed on his DD Form 214 20. In a letter, dated 23 April 1977, the Department of Defense advised him that his application for review of his discharge would be considered under the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP). There is no indication if he applied for a review of his discharge under the SDRP and if so, his record is void of the outcome of that review. 21. There is no evidence he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations for an upgrade of his discharge. 22. On 28 September 2006, in response to his request for an upgrade of his UD to a general discharge, the ABCMR concluded that the applicant's overall undistinguished record of service, good character, and post-service conduct were insufficient to warrant an upgrade of his discharge. 23. He provided copies of the following: a. A Supreme Court of the United States Syllabus for Henderson v. Secretary of the VA wherein the Court established the deadline established by the VA was not jurisdictional and as a result the VA Board was permitted to consider cases beyond the specified date of cut-off in certain cases based on the interest of justice or injustice or error in the records. b. A letter, dated 24 June 2013, wherein the NPRC provided him copies of requested personnel records and advised that the medical record he requested was not at that center and suggested he contact the nearest VA Regional Office to obtain copies of his medical records. c. Two character reference letters wherein the individuals attested to the applicant's good post-service conduct and recommended an upgrade of his UD. 24. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. The regulations stated in: a. Chapter 10 - a Soldier whose conduct rendered him triable by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge could request a discharge for the good the service in lieu of a trial. The regulation required that there have been no element of coercion involved in the submission of such a request and that the applicant was provided an opportunity to consult with counsel. The Soldier was required to sign the request indicating he understood he could receive a discharge UOTHC, the adverse nature of such a discharge, and the possible consequences thereof. The regulation required that the request be forwarded through channels to the general court-martial convening authority. An UD Certificate would normally be furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service. b. Paragraph 3-7a - an honorable discharge was a separation with honor. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally had met the standards of acceptance conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate. c. Paragraph 3-7b - a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable condition. When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 25. 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." 26. 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. 27. 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. 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. (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. (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. (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). (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 (6) Sleep disturbance f. Criterion F, duration: Persistence of symptoms (in Criteria B, C, D, and E) for more than one month. g. Criterion G, functional significance: Significant symptom-related distress or functional impairment (e.g., social, occupational). h. Criterion H, exclusion: Disturbance is not due to medication, substance use, or other illness. 28. 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 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. 29. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service DRBs and Service 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. 30. 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? 31. 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 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 causeal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. 32. Army Regulation 600-8-22 further authorizes a bronze service star, based on qualifying service, for each campaign listed in Appendix B of this regulation and states that authorized bronze service stars will be worn on the appropriate campaign or service medal, including the Vietnam Service Medal. 33. Department of the Army General Order Number 8, dated in 1974, authorized the award of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross, with Palm, Unit Citation, to all personnel assigned to the United States Army Vietnam. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. With respect to the discharge upgrade: a. The evidence of record show, upon receipt of the court-martial charges, the applicant requested to be discharged under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 which was a voluntary request for discharge in lieu by court-martial. After undergoing a mental status evaluation, the examining psychiatrist found no psychiatric disorder and he was medically cleared for separation. b. The applicant acknowledged the reason for his discharge and that he could be furnished an UOTHC discharge with a UD Certificate. He waived his rights. In his statement, he stated his attitude towards the Army was poor, he had no rehabilitative potential, and he felt that the discharge would not affect his future and he was willing to accept the discharge. c. Counsel's and the applicant's contentions were carefully considered; however, neither provided evidence showing the applicant was or has been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional and that PTSD is service-connected. In counsel's own words, they couldn't say with absolute certainty why the applicant's life became so unraveled for a few weeks just after he returned from his combat tour in Vietnam. d. There is no evidence of record and none was provided by the applicant or counsel to show PTSD was the causative factor in the applicant's misconduct upon his return from Vietnam. There is no evidence to show he was subjected to greater ordeals of war, than any other returning Vietnam veteran, which prevented his successfully completion of his period of service. During the processing of his discharge, the applicant stated that he felt he was a man of his own mind and he didn't like the Army telling him every last thing to do. e. Notwithstanding his 8 awards of the AM and excellent conduct and efficiency rating between March 1971 and March 1972, the evidence shows his misconduct thereafter diminished the quality of his service meriting a general or a fully honorable discharge. Given the offenses and absent any mitigating factors, his service did not meet the standards of service so meritorious that any other characterization would be appropriate. He was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. He did not refute the charges and he voluntarily requested to be discharged in lieu of court-martial. f. Without evidence to the contrary, his administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. He was properly discharged in accordance with pertinent regulations with due process. Therefore, there is no basis for granting him the requested relief. 2. The evidence of record shows his DD Form 214 contains an administrative error with the omission of his 8 awards of the AM which does not require action by the Board. a. It is also noted he served in Vietnam during two campaigns; therefore, he is entitled to one additional bronze service star to be affixed to his already-awarded Vietnam Service Medal. b. General orders also entitled the applicant to award of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation; therefore, it would be appropriate to correct his records to show this unit award on his DD Form 214. c. Therefore, administrative correction of this DD Form 214 will be accomplished by the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Case Management Division (CMD) as outlined by the Board in paragraph 2 of the BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION section below. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ____X___ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X___ ____X___ ________ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20060000055, dated 28 September 2006. 2. The Board determined that an administrative error in the records of the individual concerned should be corrected. Therefore, the Board requests that the ARBA, CMD administratively correct the record of the individual concerned by: * deleting from his DD Form 214 the Vietnam Service Medal with one bronze service star * adding to his DD Form 214 the Air Medal (8th Award), Vietnam Service Medal with two bronze service stars, and Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation _______ _ 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140008850 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140008850 15 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1