IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 26 March 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150000218 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 his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and the rank/grade of sergeant (SGT)/E-5 be restored. 2. The applicant states: a. He has learned that PTSD has received wider attention as the cause of many UOTHC discharges from the Vietnam era. After he received his UOTHC discharge, he was diagnosed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with PTSD and is now rated as 100 percent (%) service-connected disabled for it. His discharge after a period of very honorable service has been a stigma with shame and real life consequences. b. He now realizes that his actions that resulted in his discharge were a result of his PTSD. His poor conduct, going absent without leave (AWOL), turning to alcohol, inability to get along with his spouse, and other actions were typical of one recently experiencing trauma and symptoms of underlying, undiagnosed PTSD. 3. The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), Certification of Military Service, three orders, and a VA Rating Decision. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 21 December 1967. He completed basic combat training and was assigned for advanced individual training (AIT) to Fort Jackson, SC. 3. On 14 April 1968, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time. 4. He subsequently completed AIT and was awarded military occupational specialty 05C (Radio Teletype Operator). He served in Vietnam from 28 July 1968 to 2 March 1970 while assigned to the 407th Radio Research Detachment (RRD). He was promoted to the rank/grade of SGT/E-5 on 24 November 1969. 5. He provides orders that show he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal and two awards of the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious achievement/service in Vietnam. 6. On 19 July 1970, he was honorably discharged in the rank of SGT for the purpose of immediate reenlistment. The DD Form 214 he was issued for this period of service is not available for review with this case. 7. On 20 July 1970, he reenlisted in the RA. He was assigned to the 337th Army Security Agency (ASA), Fort Riley, KS. On 16 August 1971, he was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), 17th Engineer Battalion. 8. On 6 December 1971, he received NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for being absent without authority from his assigned unit. 9. He was reported as AWOL from his assigned unit from: * 24 to 28 February 1972 * 6 to 16 March 1972 * 22 to 29 March 1972 * 31 March to 11 April 1972 10. On 12 April 1972, he was returned to military control at Fort Hood. 11. On 24 April 1972, court-martial charges were preferred against him for one specification each of being AWOL from * 24 to 28 February 1972 * 6 to 16 March 1972 * 22 to 29 March 1972 * 31 March to 11 April 1972 12. On 26 April 1972, he consulted with legal counsel who advised him of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of a request for discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him. 13. On 26 April 1972, he requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial. In his request, he acknowledged that he had not been subjected to coercion with respect to his request for a discharge and had been advised of the implications that were attached to it. He did not submit a statement in his own behalf. 14. He further acknowledged that he understood if his request was accepted, he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He understood that as a result of such a discharge, he might be ineligible for many or all Amy benefits, many or all benefits administered by the VA, and that he might be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both State and Federal laws. He also understood that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of an undesirable discharge. 15. His immediate and senior commanders subsequently recommended approval of the applicant's request for a discharge with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 16. In a medical statement, dated 17 May 1972, the Chief, Department of Clinics, Fort Hood, stated a complete review of the applicant's physical and mental examinations failed to reveal any defects that would have contributed to his misconduct. He further stated the applicant was physically and mentally fit for duty without profile limitations, he was responsible for his acts, and was able to understand and participate in board proceedings. 17. On 22 May 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for a discharge, directed his reduction in rank/grade from SGT/E-5 to private (PVT)/E-1, and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 18. On 7 July 1972, he was reported as AWOL from his assigned unit. On 14 July 1972, he was discharged while in an AWOL status. 19. The DD Form 214 he was issued for this period of service shows he was discharged in the rank of PVT under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial (separation program number (SPN) 246), with a UOTHC characterization of service. 20. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 21. The applicant provides a VA Rating Decision, dated 24 August 2010, wherein, in part, it stated: a. The applicant's evaluation of PTSD which was currently 70% disabling was increased to 100% effective 14 May 2010. During the VA examination, dated 13 August 2010, the applicant stated he was seen once or twice a year for PTSD and depression, and he was being treated with anti-psychotic, anti-manic, and anti-depressant medication. He stated that he worried and was anxious and sometimes felt like he was just waiting to die. He reported a history of domestic assault 2 years ago, stated he was married to his 5th wife, had been married for 8 years, was close to his children, but was estranged from one son. b. He reported a history of violence and stated a neighbor called the police because he (the applicant) pulled a gun on him. He stated his psychosocial functional status had been limited over the past 2 years, he had significant withdrawal with ongoing and increasing impairment since he was no longer able to work, and he used to have serious problems with alcohol but not lately. He denied delusions, hallucinations, panic attacks, and homicidal thoughts. He reported recurrent and intrusive distressing recollections of events, including images, thoughts, or perceptions. He stated he had recurrent distressing dreams and felt as if the traumatic event was recurring. 22. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of the version in effect at the time provided that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after court-martial charges were preferred. Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service. Consulting counsel would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses charged, the type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of VA benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge. An Undesirable Discharge Certificate would normally be furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service. 23. Army Regulation 635-200, 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. 24. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that 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. 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, (one required) as follows: (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 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. 29. 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 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. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's discharge proceedings, for misconduct, were conducted in accordance with law and regulations in effect at the time. The characterization of the applicant's discharge was commensurate with the reason for discharge and overall record of military service in accordance with the governing regulations in effect at the time. 2. At the time of the applicant's discharge, PTSD was largely unrecognized by the medical community and DOD. However, both the medical community and DOD now have a more thorough understanding of PTSD and its potential to serve as a causative factor in a Soldier's misconduct when the condition is not diagnosed and treated in a timely fashion. 3. Soldiers who suffered from PTSD and were separated solely for misconduct subsequent to a traumatic event warrant careful consideration for the possible recharacterization of their overall service. 4. A review of the applicant's record shows that he was subjected to the ordeals of war while serving in the Vietnam. Of particular note is that he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal and two awards of the Army Commendation Medal for his meritorious achievement/service in Vietnam. In addition, all of his AWOL periods occurred after his return from Vietnam. 5. Subsequent to these experiences, medical evidence shows he was diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional that was a result of his experience serving in combat in Vietnam. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe the applicant's PTSD condition existed at the time of discharge. 6. It is concluded that the PTSD conditions were a causative factor in the misconduct that led to the discharge. After carefully weighing that fact against the severity of the applicant's misconduct, there is sufficient mitigating evidence to warrant upgrading the characterization of the applicant's service to a general discharge under honorable conditions and restoring his rank/grade to SGT/E-5 with an effective date of 24 November 1969. BOARD VOTE: ___x____ ___x____ ___x____ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by re-issuing the applicant's DD Form 214 for the period ending 14 July 1972 to show the characterization of service as "General, Under Honorable Conditions" and his rank/grade as SGT/E-5 with an effective date of 24 November 1969. _______ _ 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) AR20150000218 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150000218 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1