IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 21 July 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009502 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: 21 July 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009502 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined that the evidence presented was 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: a. reissuing the applicant's DD Form 214 for the period ending 29 January 1975 to show: * his characterization of service as General, Under Honorable Conditions * type of certificate issued as DD Form 257A * his primary specialty number and title as: 11B1P, Light Weapons Infantryman * the Presidential Unit Citation, Meritorious Commendation Medal, four bronze service stars for wear on his already awarded Vietnam Service Medal, RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation, RVN Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation, and Combat Infantryman Badge b. issuing the applicant a DD Form 257A (General Discharge Certificate Under Honorable Conditions). 2. The Board further determined that 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 showing his characterization of service as "Honorable." _____________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: 21 July 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009502 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: The applicant defers to his counsel. COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Counsel requests correction of the applicant’s military records by: a. showing his characterization of service was upgraded to honorable, or, in the alternative, to general under honorable conditions; b. showing he was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB); or c. in the alternative, that the Board take action within its authority to show the applicant is entitled to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health and disability benefits. 2. Counsel states the applicant answered the country's call of duty and enlisted in the U. S. Army at age 17. He had many difficulties adapting to military life because of his youth and immaturity. Regardless, the Army sent him to the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) where he eventually joined the Tiger Force Team, one of the most famous and elite small units of the war. He received numerous awards for his service, including a Bronze Star Medal, an Air Medal, an Army Commendation Medal, and the Bronze Arrowhead. 3. The applicant returned from the RVN with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). He experienced constant feelings of anger, fear and guilt. PTSD was not recognized as a mental health disorder until 1980. Consequently, the U.S. Army neither attempted to evaluate or treat his declining mental state; nor consider PTSD as a mitigating factor at the time of his discharge. Unable to cope with the ferocity of his emotions, and frustrated with garrison life, he eventually went absent without leave (AWOL) from the U.S. Army. He received an undesirable discharge (UD), under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), and is barred from receiving VA benefits to treat his PTSD. He has suffered from the condition for more than 45 years without any assistance. He has never been able to maintain a job, form lasting relationships, and often found himself homeless. 4. The Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should upgrade his discharge to Honorable because he served an entire combat tour-of-duty resulting in chronic PTSD, a condition that directly contributed to the misconduct underlying his discharge. If the Board determines that his service does not merit an honorable characterization; it should at a minimum merit general under honorable conditions. 5. The applicant joined the U.S. Army as soon as he was legally allowed. Because his parents believed he was too young for military service; he had to convince them to sign a waiver allowing him to enlist before age 18. On 9 September 1966, he enlisted in the U. S. Army as an infantryman. He completed the training requirements including the Basic Airborne Course at Fort Benning, Georgia and received the Parachutist Badge. Afterwards, he was stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina for several months before being deployed to the RVN. 7. In September, 1967, he deployed with the 5th Special Forces Group to the RVN. He served as a mortar man and was responsible for sighting his mortar tube, plotting targets, and selecting mortar rounds. His mortar team would typically execute several fire missions each night. In the first hours of the Tet Offensive, one of his sergeants asked for volunteers to help reinforce a besieged American unit near Nha Trang. He promptly volunteered and spent 2 days fighting to help rescue his fellow Soldiers. While assigned to the 5th Special Forces Group, he received NJP for violations of pass and curfew regulations. Two weeks later, he pled guilty at a special court martial to absenting himself from his unit without authority; sleeping on duty; and making a false statement to an officer. However, he was never made aware of his rights nor afforded his right to counsel. He was reduced in rank and forfeited pay. He was barred to reenlistment, and transferred to the 1st Battalion, 327th Infantry, 101st Airborne Division. The applicant and one of his comrades, whose letter of support is included with this request, believed their first sergeant targeted the applicant for punishment because he had testified against the first sergeant in a separate court-martial proceeding. In that proceeding, a Soldier was found not guilty of trying to "frag" the first sergeant. The applicant testified he had witnessed the first sergeant stealing mortar rounds out of the mortar section's locked con-x. He served as a mortar man in his new unit, shooting numerous fire missions every day. 8. The applicant volunteered for a Tiger Force Team led by a lieutenant who eventually retired as a major general and who has provided a letter of support with this request. The applicant served as the team's forward observer. He was responsible for directing close air support as well as artillery, mortar, and naval gunfire. His team lived in the jungle for weeks at a time and engaged in countless firefights. A picture of the applicant and some of his Tiger Force comrades is included with this request. 9. The applicant witnessed death on a regular basis and saw many of his teammates wounded and killed in action. His time with the Tiger Force Team ended abruptly. While out on patrol, he was ordered to board a medevac helicopter and leave his comrades because he had completed his combat tour. He considers his stint with Tiger Force Team was the best time of his life. He received several awards while serving with the Tiger Force Team, including a Bronze Star Medal. Although he received orders for a CIB, it was never placed on his DD 214. 10. The applicant returned to the United States and received orders back to Fort Bragg. At this time he began exhibiting many symptoms of PTSD, including nightmares, flashbacks, and hyper-vigilance. On the first night of his post-deployment leave, his parents discovered him in a dissociative state causing significant damage to their house and calling out to one of his Tiger Force Team comrades. His mental state continued to deteriorate. Compounding his problems, he did not receive his pay for the month of November 1968. Unable to cope with PTSD and his financial issues, he reached his limit when his command refused to help him receive his pay. He went AWOL from 27 November 1968 to on about 14 January 1969. The applicant’s commander recommended a special court-martial to discharge him from the Army. The recommendation contains no evidence that any of his superiors ever counseled him or attempted to address his behavior. The commander even recommended foregoing rehabilitation efforts. Unable to cope with PTSD and unable to resolve his situation in the Army, he again went AWOL on 5 February 1969. 11. When the applicant learned of Presidential Proclamation 4313, known as the Ford Clemency Program (FCP) in 1975, he returned to the military. He received a UD UOTHC through the FCP. By this time, he realized there was something drastically wrong with his mental state. He applied for VA benefits in 1975, 1977, and 2008, hoping to receive treatment for his debilitating mental health issues. He was denied all three times because of the characterization of his service. 12. ln December, 2014, a psychologist, who had previously served as a lead psychologist with the Southern Arizona VA Health Care System, formally diagnosed the applicant with PTSD, attributable to his experiences in the RVN. In particular, the psychologist noted the applicant suffered from intense feelings of self-blame and survivor guilt from the death of many friends, including his mentor, as well as leaving his comrades in the jungle when he was suddenly pulled from the RVN. To this day, he avoids forming relationships and suffers from mental and physical exhaustion due to constant hyper-vigilance. Although he is frequently exhausted, he has terrible problems falling asleep, largely because of frequent nightmares about the RVN. Finally, he has never been able to maintain steady employment and has lived in numerous locations often finding himself homeless. At no point did the Army attempt to evaluate, diagnose, or treat his mental disorders. Since his discharge, he has struggled alone, without any assistance from the Army or the VA. 13. Counsel contends that the applicant’s UD is an injustice in light of his PTSD, service in combat, and the Army's failure to identify and address his inability to adapt to military life before sending him into combat in the RVN. The ABCMR is authorized to correct errors and remove injustice from the records of present and former service members. Therefore, the ABCMR should upgrade the applicant’s discharge and remove the injustice he suffered when the U.S. Army neglected to evaluate his mental health, thereby allowing his PTSD to go completely unaddressed. 14. The applicant unquestionably completed a tour-of-duty in a combat zone, and spent the majority of that time performing some of the most dangerous missions of the war. He also volunteered for military service during a time of war and volunteered for the Airborne Infantry, one of the most dangerous jobs in the Army. Although his discipline record demonstrated immaturity and difficulty adapting to military life prior to deploying to the RVN, the Army still found him qualified to serve in combat. The Army only attempted to discharge him after he had served in a combat zone and started suffering the effects of PTSD. He continues to suffer from PTSD. This service-connected condition was a driving factor behind his deserting the Army. In the interest of justice, he deserves his discharge to be upgraded so that he can get the help he desperately needs. 15. The Board should waive its 3-year statute of limitations in the interest of justice and comply with the guidance provided by the Secretary of Defense memorandum dated 3 September 2014. 16. Counsel concludes by stating the applicant never fully adapted to military life, yet the U.S. Army expected him to compose himself in a war zone. As a result, an immature young man went to war and came home with PTSD. The failure to identify and treat PTSD in the RVN resulted in mistreatment and a less than honorable discharge of many service members, including the applicant. The Army has since created a vast array of mental health resources and procedures. 17. In today's Army the applicant would have received mandatory mental health screenings to identify and treat his PTSD. Such treatment would have altered the course of his life, if not the character of his discharge. Justice necessitates a discharge entitling the applicant to receive the long overdue treatment he deserves. 18. Counsel provides the following exhibits: * Tab A: Excerpts of the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) (93 pages) * Tab B: Applicant’s Declaration, dated 11 May 2015 (6 pages) * Tab C: A DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) for the active service from 9 September 1966 to 29 January 1975 * Tab D: A Letter of Support from a former Soldier who served with the applicant, dated 30 July 2010 * Tab E: A Letter of Support from a former platoon leader, now a retired major general, who served with the applicant, dated 21 November 2009 * Tabs F, G and H: Letters of Support from three former Soldiers who served with the applicant, dated 9 June 2011, 21 February 2014, and one undated * Tab I: A photograph of Tiger Force members including the applicant * Tab J: Special Orders Number 260, 101st Airborne Division, dated 16 September 1968 for the CIB * Tab K: National Center for PTSD Website Information (2 pages) * Tab L: Applicant’s PTSD Clinical Psychologist Evaluation, dated 3 December 2014 (3 pages) * Tab M: A VA Letter to the applicant from the VA Adjudication Officer, dated 16 July 1975 * Tab N: A VA Letters denying the applicant benefits, dated 3 March 1977 and 1 August 2008 * Tab P: A Resume pertaining to a clinical psychologist, undated (10 pages) * Tab Q: Memorandum from the Secretary of Defense, subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming PTSD, dated 3 September 2014, with attachment (4 pages) * Tab R: U.S. Army Psychiatry Legacies of The Vietnam War, Chapter 2, undated, pages numbered 9-42 * Tab S: National Center for PTSD, Website Information, Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (4 pages) * Tab T: National Center for PTSD, Website Information, PTSD in Children and Teens (4 pages) * Tab U: Applicant’s Statement for Alternate Service with attachment, dated January 1975 (6 pages) * Tab V: Deployment Health Assessment Program, U.S. Army, undated (4 pages) * Tab W: Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) Number 1332.14, Enlisted Administrative Separations, dated 27 January 2014 (3 pages numbered: 1,49,and 50) 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 on 9 September 1966. 3. A DA Form 2627 (Summarized Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), dated 25 October 1966, shows the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) while in Basic Combat Training at Fort Ord, CA. His misconduct consisted of failure to obey a lawful order by leaving the limits of his company area. 4. A DA Form 2627-1 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ), dated 14 December 1966, shows the applicant accepted NJP while in Advanced Individual Training at Fort Ord, CA. His misconduct consisted of failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. 5. On or about 20 January 1967, the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B1O (Light Weapons Infantryman). He was subsequently enrolled in the basic airborne course at Fort Benning, GA and completed this training on 17 February 1967. His MOS was updated to 11B1P to show his additional skill qualification as a parachutist. 6. On 24 February 1967, the applicant was assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC, for duty as a light truck driver with the 2nd Brigade. 7. Special Orders Number 176, Fort Bragg, dated 25 July 1967, announced the applicant’s conviction for violation of Article 86, UCMJ, by being AWOL from 6 to 13 July 1967 (8 days). 8. Special Orders Number 272, Fort Lewis, WA, dated 29 September 1967, announced the applicant’s assignment to the RVN with an arrival date on or about 3 October 1967. 9. The applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows the applicant was assigned to the RVN on 28 September 67 and further assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne), 1st Special Forces on 10 October 1967 with principal duties as a clerk. a. A DA Form 2627-1, dated 2 January 1968, shows he accepted NJP for failing to sign out on pass, failing to return to the military installation at the prescribed time, and failing to report for command muster formation. b. Summary Court-Martial Order Number 1, 5th Special Forces, dated 16 January 1968, shows the applicant was convicted of violating Article 86 by leaving his appointed place of duty without proper authority; Article 113 by being found asleep while posted as a sentinel; and Article 107 by making a statement with the intent to deceive. 10. Special Orders Number 44, 1st Special Forces, dated 13 February 1968, announced the applicant’s reassignment within the RVN, to the 101st Airborne Division, with a report date of 14 February 1968. a. Records show he was further assigned on 5 March 1968 to HHC, 3rd Battalion, 506th Infantry, for duty as a clerk. b. Records show he was reassigned on 27 May 1968 to Company E, 1st Battalion (Air Cavalry), 327th Infantry Regiment, for duty as an ammunitions bearer. c. Special Orders Number 260, 101st Airborne Division, dated 16 September 1968, announced the applicant’s award of the CIB. d. Records show he departed the RVN on 10 October 1968 for duty in the United States. 11. A DA Form 188 (Extract Copy of Morning Report) dated 14 January 1969, shows the applicant was AWOL effective 0630 hours, 27 November 1968. 12. A DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 16 January 1969, indicates the applicant was returned to military control on 15 January 1969. 13. On 18 January 1969, the applicant’s unit commander initiated separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness. The commander based his recommendation on the chronic character of the applicant and a behavior disorder manifested by life-long problems of adjustment, poor work record, irresponsibility, chronic AWOL pattern, inability to profit from experience or punishment, and no motivation to change. 14. The Department of Parole and Probation, State of Maryland, sent a letter to the National Personnel Records Center, St. Louis, Missouri dated, 16 September 1971. It stated that the applicant had been tried in the Worcester County Circuit Court for possession and distribution of marijuana. He was incarcerated pending completion of a pre-sentencing investigation. The purpose of the letter was to obtain the applicant’s then current military status and to verify his statement that he had previously served in the 2nd Battalion, 502nd Infantry, 82nd Airborne Division located at Fort Bragg, North Carolina; and that he served in the RVN from 27 September 1967 to 28 September 1968. He further claimed to have received several decorations and awards, including a Silver Star, two Bronze Star Medals, an Air Medal, an Army commendation Medal and a Purple Heart. He contended that he was to have been released 9 September 1969 from the military, but never received a discharge. 15. In a letter dated 15 November 1972, the Adjutant General, U.S. Army, notified the Commander, First U.S. Army that the applicant was confined by civil authorities in Maryland. The 1st indorsement to this letter, stated he had been paroled on 21 December 1971 and was residing in Pennsylvania. 16. A DA Form 3835 (Notice of Unauthorized Absence from the U.S. Army) dated 18 July 1974 indicates the applicant was absent effective 5 January 1969 and dropped from the rolls of the Army on 5 February 1969. The remarks block of this form states he was confined on 1 September 1971 in the Worchester County Jail in Maryland, for possession and distribution of marijuana. He was released on parole on 21 December 1971. A military detainer was not filed; therefore, military authorities were not notified when he was released. On 7 April 1972, his parole was transferred to Pennsylvania. He was still wanted by the Army for desertion. 17. Records show the applicant was returned to military control on 28 January 1975. 18. On 29 January 1975, the applicant submitted a voluntary request for discharge for the good of the service pursuant to the provisions of Presidential Proclamation Number 4313. He stated he understood his absence was characterized as a willful and persistent unauthorized absence for which he was subject to trial by court-martial. The request was also signed by the applicant’s counsel, who indicated that he had advised the applicant about the nature of his offenses, the maximum permissible punishments, and consequences of an undesirable discharge. 19. A DD Form 214, as provided by the applicant, shows: a. he was discharged effective 29 January 1975 under the provisions of Presidential Proclamation 4313 and he agreed to serve 9 months of alternate service pursuant to these provisions; b. his characterization of service is shown as UOTHC; c. he was issued a DD Form 258A (Undesirable Discharge Certificate); d. his primary specialty number and title were omitted; e. his decorations were listed as: * RVN Campaign Medal with 1960 Device * Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge withy Rifle Bar (M-14) * Air Medal * Army Commendation Medal * National Defense Service Medal * Parachutist Badge * Vietnam Service Medal * Bronze Star Medal 20. In a letter dated 17 July 1975, the Reconciliation Service Division Manager, Selective Service System, stated the Director had terminated the applicant’s enrollment in the Reconciliation Service Program due to his failure to report for a scheduled interview and the return of official mail to his last known address. 21. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. 22. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from a staff clinical psychologist wherein the following was provided: a. The applicant’s history of misconduct on: * 25 October 1966: failed to obey a lawful order by leaving the company limits * 14 December 1966: failed to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty * 6 to 14 July 1967: AWOL * 1 January 1968: failed to obey a lawful order by failing to sign out in the passbook * 7 January 1968: left his appointed place of duty without proper authority * 8 January 1968: found sleeping at his post * 14 January 1968: made a false official statement with intent to deceive b. In accordance with Army Directive 2014-28 (Subject: Requests to Upgrade Discharge by Veterans Claiming PTSD), and based on the information available for review at this time, the applicant’s record reasonably supports PTSD existed at the time of his military service. PTSD may be considered a mitigating factor in the applicant’s misconduct as delineated above, with the exception of his making a false official statement with the intent to deceive. c. In accordance with Title 10 United States Code 1177 (Subject: Members diagnosed with or reasonably asserting PTSD or Traumatic Brain Injury: medical examination is required before administrative separation) the requirement for a behavioral health exam prior to separation from service was not applicable in the applicant’s case for the following reason: he was discharged from the military on 29 January 1975, and it was not until 28 October 2009 that Title 10 United States Code 1177 was signed into law. 23. On 31 March 2016, a copy of the advisory opinion was sent to the applicant for his information and an opportunity to respond. No response was received. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 6a(1) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness. An Undesirable Discharge Certificate was normally considered appropriate. 2. 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." 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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? 8. Although 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 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 an UOTHC characterization of service. 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. 9. Appendix B of Army Regulation 600-8-22 shows that based on the applicant's dates of service in the RVN, he participated in the following four campaign periods: the Vietnam Counteroffensive, Phase III; the Tet Counteroffensive; the Vietnam Counteroffensive, Phase IV; the Vietnam Counteroffensive, Phase V; the Vietnam Counteroffensive, Phase VI; and the Tet 69 Counteroffensive. This same regulation states that a bronze service star will be awarded for wear on the Vietnam Service Medal for participation in each campaign. 10. Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) lists the unit awards received by units serving in the RVN. This publication shows that the 5th Special Forces, 1st Special Forces, during the time of the applicant's assignment, was cited in Department of the Army General Orders (DAGO) Number 48, dated in 1968 for award of the Presidential Unit Citation; in DAGO Number 70, dated in 1969 for award of the Meritorious Unit Commendation; in DAGO Number 59, dated in 1969 for award of the RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation; and in DAGO Number 48, dated in 1970 for award of the RVN Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant request via his counsel correction of his military records by: a. showing his characterization of service was upgraded to honorable, or, in the alternative, to general under honorable conditions; b. showing the applicant was awarded the CIB; or c. in the alternative, that the Board take action within its authority to show the applicant is entitled to VA health and disability benefits. 2. The applicant's discharge proceedings for misconduct were conducted in accordance with the law and regulations in effect at the time. The applicant's characterization of service was commensurate with the reason for discharge and overall record of military service in accordance with the governing regulations in effect at the time. 3. 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. 4. Soldiers who suffered from PTSD and were separated solely for misconduct subsequent to a traumatic event warrant careful consideration for the possible re-characterization of their overall service. 5. A review of the applicant's record and the evidence that he provided shows that he was subjected to the ordeals of war while serving in the RVN. 6. Subsequent to these experiences, medical evidence shows the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD/PTSD-related symptoms by a competent mental health professional. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe the applicant's PTSD condition existed at the time of discharge. 7. It is concluded that 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. 8. The applicant’s counsel provided a copy of special orders announcing his award of the CIB. A further review of his records revealed that he served in the RVN as an infantryman. During his combat tour he performed duty with three different organizations and is also authorized the following for his service: * Presidential Unit Citation * Meritorious Commendation Medal * Four bronze service stars for wear on his already awarded Vietnam Service Medal * RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation * RVN Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation * Combat Infantryman Badge //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150009502 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150009502 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2