BOARD DATE: 23 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015432 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 BOARD DATE: 23 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015432 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is 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 3 June 1968, to show the characterization of service as "General, Under Honorable Conditions." _____________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. BOARD DATE: 23 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015432 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 upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general under honorable conditions. 2. The applicant states, in effect, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) told him he was not eligible for benefits because of his character of service. He contends the Army did not take into account the emotional impact that exposure to combat had on him, as an 18 or 19 year old. He had nowhere to turn, and there was no one to talk to about the horrors he witnessed. He drank heavily to rid himself of his problems, and this reaction ultimately led to his discharge (implying he was suffering from undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)). After leaving the Army, he "floated around the United States" without having a purpose. He noted he has submitted a claim to the VA, and provides his claim number. 3. The applicant provides no additional documentary evidence. 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 Oklahoma Army National Guard (OKARNG) on 29 October 1964, and was immediately ordered to active duty for training (ACDUTRA). 3. He participated in advanced individual training (AIT) for military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman) at Fort Polk, LA. While there, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on two occasions: * 16 November 1964 for failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed (also referred to as failure to repair (FTR)) * 10 December 1964 for straggling on a tactical road march 4. He was honorably released from active duty on 28 April 1965. His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he completed 5 months and 29 days of net active creditable service, with 1 day of lost time (8 December 1964). 5. At some point between 29 April and 19 May 1965, he was discharged from the OKARNG. His available service record does not contain a National Guard Bureau Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service). 6. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 May 1965, and was assigned to Korea, arriving on or about 1 June 1965. On 4 August 1965, while in Korea, he again accepted NJP, this time for sleeping on his guard post. He remained in Korea until on, or about, 1 February 1966, when he was sent to Vietnam. 7. He arrived in Vietnam on, or about, 2 February 1966. While in Vietnam, he was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 14th Infantry Regiment. He accepted NJP on two occasions: * 9 May 1966 for absenting himself from his unit (AWOL) for about 6 hours * 31 December 1966 for being AWOL for about 7 hours and failing to properly maintain his weapon 8. He was medically evacuated from Vietnam to Fitzsimons General Hospital, Denver, CO, on, or about, 10 February 1967 after contracting malaria. During his assignment to Fitzsimons General Hospital, he: a. Accepted NJP on 27 February 1967 for FTR. b. Pled guilty, and was convicted, by a special court-martial on 23 May 1967 for two specifications of AWOL (28 February to 6 April 1967 and 14 April to 16 April 1967, respectively). The court sentenced him to 3 months confinement, and forfeiture of $50 per month of 3 months. The convening authority approved the sentence on 26 May 1967, and ordered it duly executed. Special Court-Martial Order Number 4, dated 5 July 1967, issued by Fitzsimons General Hospital, remitted the unexecuted portion of the sentence of confinement and forfeiture. 9. On, or about 22 August 1967, he was reassigned to Fort Carson, CO. a. He again pled guilty, and was convicted by a special court-martial on 11 January 1968 for three specifications of AWOL (20 November 1967; 24 to 27 November 1967; and 1 to 10 December 1967, respectively). The court sentenced him to 3 months confinement and forfeiture of $90 pay per month for 3 months. The convening authority approved the sentence on 18 January 1968, but suspended, until 10 April 1968, that portion adjudging confinement in excess of 8 days, at which point, it would be remitted, unless sooner vacated. [The sentence was apparently vacated, as his reduction in rank to PV1 was effective 19 January 1968.] b. He departed his Fort Carson unit in an AWOL status on 23 January 1968, and was dropped from Army rolls on, or about, 20 February 1968. 10. He was returned to military control on, or about 28 February 1968 and was reassigned to Fort Sill, OK. He departed his Fort Sill unit in an AWOL status on 9 March 1968, and was returned to military control on 1 April 1968. 11. While at Fort Sill, he pled guilty, and was once more convicted by a special court-martial on 19 April 1968 for two specifications of AWOL from 23 January to 28 February 1968, and 9 March to 1 April 1968, respectively. The court sentenced him to confinement for 6 months, and forfeiture of $90 pay per month for 6 months. On 24 April 1968, the convening authority approved only so much of the sentence as provided for 6 months confinement and forfeiture of $60 pay per month for 6 months. 12. On 27 April 1968, the Mental Hygiene Consultation Division, Fort Sill, rendered a psychiatric evaluation of the applicant, which essentially stated: * the evaluation was requested by the applicant's commander under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge, Unfitness and Unsuitability) * his past history revealed he entered the Army in 1965 after being in the OKARNG for about 1 year * he served in Vietnam from 1966 to 1967 * while in the Army, he receive ten NJP, nine of which were for AWOL * he has had four courts-martial, all for AWOL * he has not been able to adjust to military life and asserts he will continue to go AWOL if retained on active duty * regarding mental status, he was alert, cooperative, and oriented to time, place, and person * his memory was intact for both remote and recent events; he denied having any delusions or hallucinations, and there was no evidence of psychotic thought * diagnosis: emotionally unstable personality 13. On 1 May 1968, the applicant's supporting chaplain submitted a statement that said, in effect, the applicant had been in the Army since 1964, and had been AWOL at least four times. He seemed unable to give any concrete reason for going AWOL, or to explain why he was unable to adjust to military life. In light of this, the chaplain felt any further efforts towards rehabilitation would be in vain. 14. In an undated memorandum, likely issued between the end of April and the start of May 1968, the applicant's commander notified him he was being recommended for elimination under the provisions of AR 635-212, for unfitness. 15. On 6 May 1968, the applicant consulted with legal counsel (a military attorney) and affirmed he had been advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action. Following his consultation, he: * waived his right to personally appear before, and to have his case considered by, a board of officers * elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf, and waived his right to further representation by military counsel * acknowledged he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life, if given either a general discharge under honorable conditions or an undesirable discharge under other than honorable conditions * further indicated he was aware an Undesirable Discharge Certificate could make him ineligible for many, or all benefits under the laws of the Federal government and those of his respective State 16. On 20 May 1968, the separation authority approved the commander's recommendation, and directed the applicant receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 17. Special Court-Martial Order Number 661, dated 27 May 1968, issued by Headquarters Battalion, U.S. Army Artillery and Missile Center and Fort Sill, suspended, for 6 months, the unexecuted portion of 6 months confinement, at which point, it would be remitted, unless sooner vacated. 18. On 3 June 1968, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-212 due to unfitness with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. He completed 2 years, 3 months, and 3 days of net active creditable service, with a cumulative total of 286 days of lost time. His rank/grade is listed as PV1/E-1, with a date of rank of 19 January 1968. He was awarded or authorized: * National Defense Service Medal * Vietnam Service Medal with one bronze service star * Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960) * Combat Infantryman Badge * one overseas service bar (Vietnam) 19. On 12 May 1983, he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to upgrade his character of service. The ADRB denied his request on 31 October 1983. 20. On 2 February 2017 (later amended on 6 February 2017), the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) psychiatrist provided an advisory opinion. a. The applicant entered the Army on 20 May 1965 in the MOS of 11B. While on active duty, he completed a tour in Vietnam. On 3 June 1968, he was discharged with an under other than honorable conditions discharge in accordance with AR 635-212. His misconduct consisted of multiple offenses of AWOL. His previous application to the ADRB was denied on 31 October 1983. He is now applying to the ABCMR contending he drank heavily while in the military to deal with "the horrors of combat," indicating he was suffering from PTSD. b. The ARBA psychiatrist was asked to evaluate this case. Assessed documentation included the application and his military records. The applicant did not submit any civilian or VA medical records, but VA's Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) was reviewed. The military electronic medical record (the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA)) was not in use during the applicant's era of service. c. Review of his military personnel records are void of documentation reflecting any type of behavioral health condition, to include PTSD. d. A command-directed mental status evaluation, dated 30 April 1968, stated: (1) A detailed psychiatric study revealed the applicant was a 20 year old enlisted man who was referred to the Neuropsychiatric Clinic for evaluation under AR 635-212. He was seen in the post stockade on 27 April 1968. (2) Past history reveals he entered the active Army in 1965 after being the National Guard for about 1 year. He served in Vietnam in 1966 to 1967. While in the Army, he received ten NJP, nine for being AWOL. He also has had four courts-martial for AWOL. He has not been able to adjust to the Army, and states he will continue to go AWOL as long as he is retained on active duty. (3) Mental Status shows an alert, cooperative young man who was oriented as to time, place, and person. Memory was intact for both remote and recent events. The applicant denied having either delusions or hallucinations, and there was no evidence of psychotic thought processes. Diagnosis was emotionally unstable personality. e. There is no indication in his available military service records that he failed medical retention standards in accordance with AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness). f. A review of the JLV indicated VA awarded the applicant a 30 percent disability rating for service-connected, chronic PTSD. His VA record also shows he was psychiatrically hospitalized for PTSD in 2011. g. The lack of documentation reflecting a diagnosis for PTSD in the applicant's available service record does not necessarily show he did not have PTSD. PTSD symptoms were frequently not recognized, and oftentimes, in cases like this, the presence of PTSD must be inferred from behavioral indicators. (1) The applicant's military record contains indicators that he was becoming progressively more distressed by being in the military. He was initially recognized as a good Soldier by his command, and his superiors were puzzled by his repeated AWOLs. * his commander wrote, on 20 February 1968, "[applicant] appeared not to have any domestic problems or troubles with his superiors, and his indebtedness was being met within a satisfactory manner" * "there is no record of any evidence or indications of foul play or mental instability which may have caused this man's absence" * chaplain's statement, dated 1 May 1968, also reflects this confusion, "[applicant] seems unable to adjust to the Army" (2) This history of good performance and lack of significant disciplinary problems followed by a history of inexplicable, repetitive AWOLs is not uncommon in Soldiers with PTSD. For the applicant, this pattern of behavior is indicative of the psychological distress he felt by constantly being reminded, and "triggered" about his Vietnam experiences, vis-a-vis the military. By going AWOL, he avoided those triggers that caused him to remember the unbearable pain of his traumatic experiences in Vietnam, and, in the process, enabled him to maintain his psychological equilibrium. h. In conclusion, based on the information available, the applicant has a mitigating behavioral health condition for the offense that led to his separation from the Army. He was found to have a 30 percent, service-connected disability for PTSD by the VA. As PTSD is often associated with avoidant behaviors (such as going AWOL), there is a nexus between his PTSD and his repeated incidents of AWOL. 21. The Case Management Division, ARBA provided the applicant a copy of the ARBA medical advisory for review and comment, but he has not responded. REFERENCES: 1. AR 635-212, in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for separating enlisted personnel for reasons of unfitness or unsuitability. Paragraph 6 (Applicability), subparagraph a (Unfitness) states an individual is subject to separation under the provisions of this regulation when one or more of the listed conditions exist. Included on this list is an established pattern for shirking. 2. AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) provides policy and procedures for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 3-7b states 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. Article 58a, UCMJ states, when a court-martial sentence includes confinement, enlisted Soldiers a pay grade above private (PV1)/E-1 will be reduced to PV1 effective the date of the sentence's approval by the convening authority. 4. PTSD can occur after someone goes through a traumatic event like combat, assault, or disaster. a. The 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. b. From a 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." 5. 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 he or she has been exposed to an event that is considered traumatic. a. Clinical experience with the PTSD diagnosis has shown 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. b. 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. 6. The Fifth Revision of DSM-5 was released in May 2013. This updated edition included 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) * Recurrent, involuntary, and intrusive memories * Traumatic nightmares * Dissociative reactions (e.g., flashbacks) which may occur on a continuum from brief episodes to complete loss of consciousness * Intense or prolonged distress after exposure to traumatic reminders * 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) * Trauma-related thoughts or feelings * 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) * Inability to recall key features of the traumatic event (usually dissociative amnesia; not due to head injury, alcohol, or drugs) * Persistent (and often distorted) negative beliefs and expectations about oneself or the world (e.g., "I am bad," "The world is completely dangerous") * Persistent distorted blame of self or others for causing the traumatic event or for resulting consequences * Persistent negative trauma-related emotions (e.g., fear, horror, anger, guilt, or shame) * Markedly diminished interest in (pre-traumatic) significant activities. * Feeling alienated from others (e.g., detachment or estrangement) * 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) * Irritable or aggressive behavior * Self-destructive or reckless behavior * Hypervigilance * Exaggerated startle response * Problems in concentration * 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 7. 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. a. This acknowledgement is the result of the extensive research conducted by the medical community, along with the relatively recent issuance of revised criteria regarding the causes, diagnosis, and treatment of PTSD. b. It is also recognized that, in some cases, this undiagnosed condition of PTSD may have been a mitigating factor in the misconduct that served as a catalyst for the Soldier's discharge. c. Of note, research has demonstrated 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 extended periods. 8. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense gave written guidance to Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs). The memorandum directed them to consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations, and mitigating factors when taking action on requests for upgrades in the character of service for former service members who had a valid diagnosis of PTSD. 9. BCM/NRs are not courts, nor are they investigative agencies. Therefore, the determinations are 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? 10. Although 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. a. 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. b. BCM/NRs 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. c. PTSD is not a likely a 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 requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge given under the provisions of AR 635-212. He implies the misconduct that led to his adverse discharge (multiple instances of AWOL) was caused by undiagnosed PTSD. 2. During the applicant's era of service, PTSD was largely unrecognized by the medical community and DOD. Both now have a more thorough understanding of PTSD, as well as its potential to be a causative factor in a Soldier's misconduct. This is particularly true when the condition goes undiagnosed, and there has not been timely treatment. Soldiers who suffer from PTSD warrant careful consideration for the possible recharacterization of their overall service when they were separated solely for misconduct that was subsequent to a traumatic event. 3. The applicant's VA records provide evidence that he has been diagnosed with PTSD, and was psychiatrically hospitalized in 2011. The records indicate his symptoms are the result of his combat experiences. a. While the evidence of record shows he accepted NJP for minor misconduct prior to his tour in Vietnam, his extended periods of AWOL did not occur until after his return to the Continental United States. b. Based on a review of both his available service record and the medical documentation available from VA, the ARBA psychologist concluded that, despite his misconduct, which began prior to even arriving in Vietnam, and notwithstanding his extensive history of NJP, and conviction by four separate courts-martial, there was a nexus between his PTSD and his periods of AWOL. His PTSD was determined to be mitigating. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150015432 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150015432 13 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2