IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 September 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150008451 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ___x____ ___x____ ___x____ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 September 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150008451 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing the 26 May 1971 DD Form 214 to show: * Character of Service: "General, Under Honorable Conditions" * Grade, Rate or Rank: "PFC" * Pay Grade: "E-3" * Date of Rank: "27 October 1969" 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to upgrade to a fully honorable discharge. ___________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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 September 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150008451 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge an honorable discharge or a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 2. The applicant states, in effect, his discharge was related to his mental health condition at the time. a. He states he served honorably during his first tour of duty in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN). He believed in the cause he was fighting for and reenlisted while serving in RVN. At the age of 23 he had seen more horror in combat during his 19-month tour of duty than doctors working in an emergency room see during their entire medical career. He acknowledges that he sometimes self-medicated following difficult combat experiences he encountered. b. He returned to the United States and, following a 30-day leave, he was assigned to Fort Gordon, GA. Then, a number of things happened that were difficult for him to cope with. There was intense combat training taking place. The noise from the constant firing of small arms and artillery often caused him to "hit the dirt." His nerves were shattered, he was always on edge, and he had a sense or need to run, especially when helicopters were flying overhead. c. He believes post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was the primary factor for his lack of judgment and poor decisions in going absent without leave (AWOL) on three occasions. As a result, he was discharged with an UOTHC discharge. d. He states there were no outreach programs available to him at the time. He was living in fear, ashamed of his mental state, and he turned to drugs. His drug use lasted for more than 25 year and he is not proud of it. In 1985, his doctor acknowledged that he did not know much about PTSD, but he believed the applicant was suffering from PTSD. e. He states he has been drug-free for 13 years. He adds that he served his country honorably during the Vietnam War and is hopeful that the diagnosis of PTSD is considered in mitigating the overall characterization of his service. 3. The applicant provides copies of: * a self-authored letter, dated 15 June 2015 (summarized above) * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States), dated 29 April 2015 (summarized above) * two DD Forms 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) * two letters from his medical doctors * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rating/decision documents CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 7 November 1967 for a period of 3 years. Upon completion of training he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 95B (Military Policeman (MP)). 2. On 13 May 1968, he was assigned overseas to Okinawa where he trained as a dog handler from 14 May through 10 July 1968. He was then reassigned to Vietnam where he was: * a Security Guard (Duty MOS 95B1D) while assigned to – * 148th MP Detachment from 11 July through 14 October 1968 * 981st MP Company (Security Detachment) from 15 October 1968 through 17 December 1969 * promoted to specialist four (SP4)/E-4 on 30 November 1968 * reduced to private first class (PFC)/E-3 on 27 October 1969 * attached to 3rd Platoon, Company B, 93rd MP Battalion, from 9 November 1969 through 17 December 1969 3. A DD Form 214 shows he was honorably discharged on 1 December 1969 to reenlist in the RA. He had completed 2 years and 24 days of net active service that included 1 year, 6 months, and 12 days of foreign service. 4. While serving in RVN, the applicant reenlisted in the RA on 2 December 1969 for a period of 6 years. He departed RVN on 18 December 1969. 5. On 3 February 1970, he was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, U.S. Army MP School, Fort Gordon, GA. 6. The applicant's DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record), item 44 (Time Lost), in pertinent part, shows: * AWOL (29 days) – 31 March 1970 to 28 April 1970 * AWOL (225 days) – 6 May to 16 December 1970 * AWOL (113 days) – 24 December to 15 April 1971 7. He was confined by military authorities on 16 April 1971 (until 5 May 1971). 8. On or about 21 April 1971, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant. 9. A review of the applicant's military personnel records failed to reveal a copy of a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) or an administrative separation packet. 10. On 14 May 1971, the applicant underwent a medical examination. The applicant indicated that his medical condition was "excellent." The examining physician found the applicant qualified for separation. 11. A DD Form 214 shows the applicant entered active duty this period on 2 December 1969 and he was discharged on 26 May 1971 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, with an UOTHC characterization of service. He completed 5 months and 3 days of net active service during this period and he had 387 days of lost time. It also shows his rank as private (PV1)/pay grade (E-1) with a date of rank of 17 May 1971. 12. On 14 January 1986, the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. a. A review of the applicant's petition shows he received The Battalion Watch Award for securing an ammunition dump in Pleiku when it was infiltrated. He stated he went AWOL after he returned to the United States because his wife divorced him. b. A further review failed to reveal that he raised the issue of PTSD as a factor that caused him to g AWOL and that led to his discharge. 13. On 15 April 1986, the applicant was notified that the ADRB denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. 14. In support of his application the applicant provided the following additional documents (that are not summarized elsewhere in this Record of Proceedings). a. Diplomat of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, Parkersburg, WV, letter, dated 9 May 1994, that shows Doctor E. S__ G___, informed Doctor J__ W___, that he treated the applicant as a psychiatric patient from October 1988 through February 1991. The doctor wrote, "I treated him for Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia. The precipatory anxiety, phobic avoidance, and panic spells were much improved over this timeframe with relatively low dose Klonopin treatment." He also wrote, "In response to your speculation regarding PTSD, while I did not specifically make this diagnosis, it could be readily inferred from [the applicant's] history of panic, fearfulness, and insomnia with resultant drug abuse starting while in Vietnam and persisting on and off to the present time." b. Solay, I.T. Breeze Veteran's Pavilion, Durham, NC, letter, dated 7 February 2013, that shows K__ L. U___, Doctor of Psychology, Licensed Professional Counselor, National Certified Counselor, Distance Credentialed Counselor; confirmed she interviewed the applicant and the results of her interview revealed: * Axis I: PTSD * Axis II: Deferred * Axis III: Panic attacks, sleep difficulties * Axis IV: Unemployed, familial discord * Axis V: 45 (1) She reported that the applicant served in Vietnam as a dog handler, he worked with very dangerous attack dogs, and the dogs were very confrontational. She noted, "Because the dogs were confrontational, it was not possible for [the applicant] to associate with others. As a result of this, [applicant] was socially isolated. [The applicant] worked during the night and guarded perimeters and ammunition. He reports being scared for his life because of being surrounded by ammunition and the threat of perimeter intrusions." (2) She also provides information that indicates the applicant constantly felt anxiety from the ever-present threat of attack and the loss of many friends. "For 19 months, he had to endure being shot at, and trying to shoot others. This extended time was the worst time of his life." (3) She concludes, "It is my professional opinion that [the applicant's] symptoms and diagnosis of PTSD are service-related." c. VA Regional Office, St. Paul, MN, administrative decisions and rating documents, dated 18 November 2002 and 9 April 2014, that show the applicant was informed that his discharge on 26 May 1971 constitutes a statutory bar to VA benefits. 15. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Behavioral Health Division, Health Care Delivery, U.S. Army Medical Command G-3/5/7, Office of The Surgeon General (OTSG), Falls Church, VA. a. The official stated the ABCMR requested a determination as to whether the applicant's 26 May 1971 separation was due to PTSD based on a review of the applicant's petition and the allied papers. The advisory opinion is based solely on the information provided by the ABCMR as the Department of Defense (DoD) electronic medical record was not in use at the time of the applicant's service. b. The advisory official noted the applicant was treated as a psychiatric inpatient from October 1988 through February 1991 for Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia. She also noted the psychiatrist later acknowledged that a diagnosis of PTSD "could be readily inferred from [applicant's] history of panic, fearfulness, and insomnia with the resultant drug abuse starting while in Vietnam and persisting on and off to the present time." The advisory official also states, "Given that PTSD was not recognized as a diagnosis during the Vietnam era, it is unlikely that the applicant or anyone else recognized his symptoms as being related to combat. He [the applicant] experienced combat-related trauma the effects of which were not well understood at the time and so did not receive attention or treatment when he returned home. The three incidents of AWOL (367 days) that occurred following his return as well as subsequent attempts at self-medication through drug use constitute a pattern of behavior consistent with PTSD. There is little doubt that he met criteria for PTSD at the time of his misconduct and that this condition was a mitigating factor in his behavior." 16. On 8 August 2016, the applicant was provided a copy of the OTSG advisory opinion to allow him the opportunity (30 days) to submit comments or a rebuttal. A response was not received from the applicant. 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 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. 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. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 10 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, type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of Veterans Administration 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 an individual who was discharged for the good of the Service. 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. c. Chapter 3, 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. 9. Army Regulation 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's contention that his discharge should be upgraded based on a diagnosis of PTSD was carefully considered. 2. Records show the applicant had honorable active duty service from 7 November 1967 through 1 December 1969, which included service in the RVN. 3. The evidence of record shows the applicant's record of indiscipline began during the period of his initial enlistment while he was serving in Vietnam. He was reduced in rank from SP4 (E-4) to PFC (E-3) on 27 October 1969; the reason for his reduction is not available. 4. The evidence of record shows the applicant reenlisted while serving in Vietnam. After he was reassigned to Fort Gordon, GA, his acts of indiscipline resulted in court-martial charges being preferred for him being AWOL on three occasions totaling 367 days. 5. The applicant requested and accepted an undesirable discharge certificate with a characterization of UOTHC. 6. The regulations governing the Board's operation require that the discharge process be presumed to have been in accordance with applicable law and regulations unless the applicant can provide evidence to overcome that presumption. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the discharge process, the type of discharge, and the characterization of service directed at the time is presumed to have been appropriate. 7. The applicant's available military service records fail to show he experienced a traumatic event during the period of his reenlistment. However, the evidence of record shows he experienced wartime events during his initial period of active duty. 8. 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. 9. 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. a. On 9 May 1994, a psychiatrist confirmed that he treated the applicant for Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia. He acknowledged that he did not diagnose the applicant with PTSD. He opined that PTSD could be readily inferred from the applicant's history of panic, fearfulness, and insomnia with the resultant drug abuse starting while in Vietnam. b. On 7 February 2013, a doctor of psychology confirmed that her interview of the applicant revealed PTSD symptoms and opined the applicant's symptoms and the diagnosis of PTSD are service-related. c. On 5 August 2016, the OTSG, opined that the applicant's three incidents of AWOL that occurred following his return from Vietnam, as well as subsequent attempts at self-medication through drug use, constitute a pattern of behavior consistent with PTSD. She concluded that the applicant met criteria for PTSD at the time of his misconduct and that the condition was a mitigating factor in his behavior. d. In view of the foregoing, it is reasonable to believe the applicant's PTSD condition existed during the period of service that is under review and that the condition was a causative factor in the misconduct that led to the discharge. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150008451 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150008451 11 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2