IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 November 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150013484 BOARD VOTE: ___x_____ ___x___ ___x____ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ 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 November 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150013484 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 to show the characterization of service as general, under honorable conditions and his rank/grade as specialist four (SP4)/E-4 with an effective date of 24 June 1971. __________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 November 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150013484 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, his undesirable discharge be upgraded. 2. The applicant states he did not go absent without leave (AWOL). He was sent home by his company commander to pull himself together after Vietnam. He was so messed up that he didn't go back due to not being able to distinguish the difference between what was reality and what was not. No one explained the difference between the honorable and other than honorable discharges. 3. The applicant provides: * documentation of medication management appointments, dated from 12 July 2011 - 18 September 2012 * Clinical Encounter Summaries from First Med, Inc, Gatlinburg, TN, from February - August 2014 * Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments, dated 3 September 2014, from the Secretary of Defense * VA Form 9 (Appeal to Board of Veterans' Appeals), dated 3 August 2015 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. On 6 November 1970, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 2 years. He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupation specialty 05E (Voice-Radio Operator). 3. On 13 May 1971, the applicant was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 164th Combat Aviation Group, in the Republic of Vietnam. On 24 June 1971, he was promoted to specialist four (SP4)/E-4. 4. On 20 October 1971, the applicant was assigned to B Troop, 1st Squadron, 7th Air Cavalry, in the Republic of Vietnam. 5. On 23 December 1971, the applicant went AWOL from B Troop, 1st Squadron, 7th Air Cavalry, in the Republic of Vietnam. 6. On 26 February 1973, the applicant surrendered to military authorities at Fort Knox, KY. He was assigned to the Special Processing Company, U.S. Army Personnel Control Facility (USAPCF), Fort Knox, KY. 7. On 8 March 1973, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from B Troop, 1st Squadron, 7th Air Cavalry, from on or about 23 December 1971 to on or about 26 February 1973. 8. On 13 March 1973, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 10. He acknowledged he had been afforded the opportunity to speak with counsel prior to making his request. He acknowledged he understood the elements of the offense he was charged with and he was: * making the request of his own free will * making a statement in his own behalf * advised he might be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate 9. He acknowledged he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he were issued an undesirable discharge and he: * would be deprived of many or all Army benefits * might be ineligible for many or all veterans' benefits * might be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws 10. The applicant provided a statement in his own behalf with his request for discharge stating the following: a. He enlisted for the draft because his recruiter told him he was on the next month's draft call. He had a very poor attitude when he entered the Army. b. He went AWOL because he had served as long as he could and still function as an individual. He asked to be discharged several times and never got any further than the commanding officer (CO). c. While serving in Vietnam he developed a drug problem. After 6 months he was ready to admit he was an addict and he went to his CO for help. The CO sent him to another unit where there were at least 33 percent more addicts than his previous company. The only way he could come down was at home, by himself. d. His attitude now was worse than when he first joined the Army. The Army would not help him and he no longer felt he could serve. If his request for discharge was denied he would have no alternative but to try again to get out by any means possible. 11. On 13 March 1973, the applicant's company commander and the Commander, USAPCF, recommended approval of his request for discharge and that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 12. On 28 March 1973, the Commanding General (CG), U.S. Army Armor Center and Fort Knox, Fort Knox, KY, approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge. The CG directed he be reduced to the grade of private/pay grade E-1 and that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 13. On 3 April 1973, the applicant was reduced to private/E-1 effective 28 March 1973 with a date of rank of 28 March 1973. 14. On 9 April 1973, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200 for the good of the service with an undesirable discharge. He completed 1 year, 3 months and 1 day and his service was characterized as under conditions other than honorable. He had 319 days of time lost prior to his expiration of his term of service (ETS) and 112 days of lost time subsequent to his ETS. His DD Form 214 shows he is authorized the Vietnam Service Medal with two bronze service stars and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960). 15. Records of medication management visits dated from 12 July 2011 – 18 September 2012 noted the applicant had been a patient for many years. Diagnostic impression was generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) by history and symptoms including intrusive memories, flashbacks, nightmares, frequent panic attacks, and increased hyper startle response. 16. Clinical Encounter Summaries from First Med, Inc, Gatlinburg, TN, from February - August 2014 regarded treatment of his addiction with suboxone. 17. On 31 August 2016, an advisory opinion was received from the Office of the Surgeon General (OTSG). The opinion was based solely on the information provided by the Board as the Department of Defense (DOD) electronic medical record (AHLTA) was not in use at the time of his service. OTSG was asked to determine if he met criteria for PTSD at the time of separation and if he is eligible for an honorable discharge. a. According to the applicant, he did not go AWOL but rather "was sent home by my CO to pull myself together after Vietnam. I was so messed up that I didn't go back due to not being able to distinguish the difference what was reality and what was not." b. The medical documentation provided includes medication management at CHS Newport in 2012, with the notation that the applicant had been "a patient here for many years." Diagnostic impression was generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, PTSD by history and symptoms included intrusive memories, flashbacks and nightmares, frequent panic attacks, and increased hyper startle response. c. Also provided were notes from First Med Inc. regarding treatment of his addiction with suboxone. d. Although there are no behavioral health records available from the applicant's time in service, his reported symptoms are consistent with a diagnosis of PTSD which may be considered a mitigating factor in the misconduct that led to his separation. 18. The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion. He did not provide any comments or a rebuttal. REFERENCES: 1. AR 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System), in effect at the time, prescribed policies, responsibilities, and procedures pertaining to career management of Army enlisted personnel. Paragraph 7-26 stated that upon determination by the general court-martial authority that an individual was to be discharged from the service under other than honorable conditions, the individual would be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. Board action was not required. 2. AR 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 10 stated a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge may, at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate. At the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge. b. 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. 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. 3. 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." 4. 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. 5. The DSM fifth revision (DSM-V) 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; or (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; or (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; or (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); or (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; or (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. 6. 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 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. 7. 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 under other than honorable conditions 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. 8. 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? 9. 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 under other than honorable conditions 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 under other than honorable conditions. 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. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial was administratively correct and in compliance with applicable regulations. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate when a member is separated under the provisions of chapter 10. The records contain no evidence of procedural or other errors that would have jeopardized his rights. 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. Research has also shown that misconduct stemming from PTSD is typically based upon a spur of the moment decision resulting from a temporary lapse in judgment. PTSD is not a likely cause for either premeditated misconduct or misconduct that continues for an extended period of time. 4. At the time the applicant went AWOL his unit was in the Republic of Vietnam. He contends his CO sent him home to pull himself together. However, the applicant did not surrender to military control for over a year after he went AWOL. 5. OTSG states that although there are no behavioral health records available from the applicant's time in service, his reported symptoms are consistent with a diagnosis of PTSD which may be considered a mitigating factor in the misconduct that led to his separation. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150013484 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150013484 11 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2