DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ARMY REVIEW BOARDS AGENCY 251 18TH STREET SOUTH, SUITE 385 ARLINGTON, VA 22202-3531 SAMA-RB 23 December 2016 MEMORANDUM FOR Case Management Division, US Army Review Boards Agency, 251 18th Street South, Suite 385, Arlington, VA 22202-3531 SUBJECT: Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings for AR20150017201 1. Reference the attached Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings, dated 15 December 2016, in which the Board members unanimously recommended denial of the applicant's request 2. I have reviewed the findings, conclusions, and Board member recommendations. I find there is sufficient evidence to grant relief. Therefore, under the authority of Title 1O, United States Code, section 1552, I direct that all Department of the Army Records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing the applicant a DD Form 214 showing his characterization of service as "General, Under Honorable Conditions" and his rank/grade as SP4/E-4 with a date of rank of 23 January 1969. 3. Request necessary administrative action be taken to effect the correction of records as indicated no later than 23 April 2017. Further, request that the individual concerned and counsel, if any, as well as any Members of Congress who have shown interest be advised of the correction and that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records be furnished a copy of the correspondence. BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: M1 e- BOARD DATE: 15 December 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150017201 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING __x______ _x_______ __x___ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 15 December 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150017201 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. __________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: 15 December 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150017201 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 reconsideration of his previous request for an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states he read the Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments, dated 3 September 2014, and feels that [since he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)] he meets the requirements of the memorandum for an upgrade of his discharge. 3. The applicant provides: * six documents related to his separation processing * Undesirable Discharge Certificate * a psychological evaluation * memorandum CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number A5-9731 on 20 December 1995. 2. Based on the applicant’s claim that he has PTSD, his application is being reviewed under the 2014 Secretary of Defense's guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military (BCM)/Naval Records (NR). 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 May 1968 and he held military occupational specialty (MOS) 71H (Personnel Specialist). On 23 January 1969, he was promoted specialist four (SP4)/E-4. He served in Germany from 6 April 1969 to 15 October 1969 while assigned to the 504th Administration Company. 4. He arrived in Vietnam on 13 December 1969 and on 22 December 1969 he was assigned to the 1st Administration Company, 1st Infantry Division (ID), Vietnam. On 7 April 1970, he was assigned to the 520th Personnel Service Company, Vietnam. 5. On 27 June 1970, he signed out of his unit on a 7-day ordinary leave for a visit to Bangkok, Thailand. 6. On 5 July 1970, he was reported as absent without leave (AWOL) when he failed to return to his unit in Vietnam. On 9 July 1970, his unit was notified by the Special Services, Rest and Recuperation (R&R) Section, Australia, that the applicant had missed his return R&R flight from Sidney, Australia, on 5 July 1970. On 3 August 1970, he was dropped from the rolls as a deserter. 7. In a commanding officer's inquiry, dated 4 August 1970, his immediate commander stated, in part: a. The applicant was scheduled to depart on leave for Bangkok, Thailand, but instead departed on an R&R flight to Sydney, Australia. On 25 July 1970, SP4 MB was interviewed and he stated he had accompanied the applicant on leave to Australia. Based on the information from SP4 MB, a message was sent to Australia providing information on the girl the applicant was believed to be with; no reply had been received. b. There was no record or indication of suspected foul play or mental instability which may have caused the absence. Based on the interview with SP4 MB, there was no evidence of his intent not to return. 8. On 28 March 1972, the applicant surrendered to the American Consul, Sydney. On 29 March 1972, he was returned to military control and assigned to the Special Processing Detachment, Headquarters (HQ), U.S. Army Hawaii (USARHAW), Schofield Barracks, HI. 9. On 4 April 1972, court-martial charges were preferred against him. Although the court-martial charge sheet is not available for review with this case, it is presumed he was charged with being AWOL from 5 July 1970 to 27 March 1972 (632 days or 1 year, 8 months, and 23 days). 10. On 23 May 1972, he underwent a separation physical. On the Standard Form (SF) 93 (Report of Medical History) the applicant stated he was in excellent health (except his teeth). In part, he checked the "yes" blocks of this form to indicate that had had or now had depression or excessive worry and nervous trouble of any sort. On 23 May 1972, the examining physician indicated on an SF 88 (Report of Medical Examination) that a psychiatric evaluation was not conducted and the applicant was qualified for separation. 11. The applicant provides a letter that shows on 25 May 1972, after consulting with legal counsel, he requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial. In his request, he acknowledged that he had not been subjected to coercion with respect to his request for a discharge and had been advised of the implications that were attached to it. 12. He further acknowledged that he understood if his request was accepted, he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He understood that as a result of such a discharge, he might be ineligible for many or all Amy benefits, many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, and he might be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both State and Federal laws. He also understood that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of an undesirable discharge. 13. He also provides a statement he submitted in his own behalf, wherein he stated, in part: a. He experienced personal problems which substantially affected his military career. His problems began in Germany when his spouse (at the time) remained in the U.S; he experienced marital difficulty which was repaired pending the birth of a child. However, the child died 5 and 1/2 hours after birth. At the time, he also had a son he had to leave when he was assigned to Vietnam. While in Vietnam, he lost his spouse to another man, which made life unbearable for him. b. It was extremely difficult to adjust to the service under those conditions and he felt he had to be alone in order to get ahold of himself. He went on R&R to Australia and was able to realize life was worth living again. He met a woman and they planned to get married as soon as he got his life straightened out. He regretted the situation he was in and had always tried to do what was expected of him as a Soldier. He realized what he was charged with was wrong but hoped his 27 months of service would be considered and he would receive a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 14. The applicant provides a statement from his immediate commander, wherein his commander recommended approval of the applicant's request for discharge with the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. He stated, in part: a. After 3 months in Germany, the applicant volunteered for assignment to Vietnam. After 7 months in Vietnam, he took R&R in Australia and upon completion of his R&R he went AWOL. Prior to departing AWOL, his character of service had been excellent and he had no record of court-martial or nonjudicial punishment.  b. His personal evaluation of the applicant indicated his real problem revolved around his inability to face his personal problems. He suffered no problems with the Army until he was unable to bear his marital difficulties. 15. On or about 9 June 1972, the approving authority subsequently approved his request for a discharge. The applicant provides and his record contained Special Orders (SO) Number 115, dated 13 June 1972, issued by HQ, USARHAW, discharging him effective 13 June 1972 with an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. 16. The DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) he was issued confirms he was discharged on 13 June 1972, in the rank of private/E-1, under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial (separation program number (SPN) 246), with an UOTHC characterization of service. He completed 2 years, 3 months, and 22 days of net active service of which 26 days was excess leave, and he had 1 year, 8 months, and 23 days of lost time due to being AWOL. 17. On 15 January 1974, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge and determined his discharge was both proper and equitable. 18. On 20 December 1995, the ABCMR denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge and determined his discharge was both proper and equitable. 19. The applicant provides a psychological evaluation, dated 29 December 2015, which was forwarded to the Clinical Psychiatrist, Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) for review. 20. In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was received on 1 November 2016 from a Clinical Psychiatrist, ARBA. The advisory official opined: a. The applicant enlisted in the Army on 20 May 1968 and held MOS 71H. While in the military, he spent several months in Germany and then volunteered for a tour of duty in Vietnam. While in Vietnam, he went to Australia on R&R on 27 June 1970. He was declared AWOL on 5 July 1970 when he failed to return to his unit. On 28 March 1972, he turned himself in to the American Consul, Sydney, Australia. He was sent to Hawaii for disposition and court-martial charges were preferred against him for AWOL. On 25 May 1972, he submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10. He was discharged on 13 June 1972 with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He applied to the ADRB for a discharge upgrade which was denied on 15 January 1974. He applied to the ABCMR for a discharge upgrade which was denied on 20 December 1995. He is now reapplying to the ABCMR requesting a discharge upgrade contending he had PTSD which led to the misconduct resulting in his discharge. b. The applicant’s civilian health care documentation consists of a Psychological Evaluation, dated 29 December 2015, performed by JC, PhD. The evaluation consisted of a comprehensive clinical interview and psychological tests. Based on the interview and test results, the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, chronic, delayed onset; and major depressive disorder, recurrent, severe, without psychotic features. It was noted in the evaluation that the applicant identified his traumatic stressor as combat service in Vietnam where he witnessed other Soldiers being wounded and killed. He reported he had been exposed to frequent, small arms fire, rocket, and mortar attacks. The applicant continues to experience PTSD symptoms of intrusive recollection, poor sleep, emotional numbing, sense of foreshortened future, increased startle reaction, and decreased concentration. c. Review of the military medical and personnel records indicates his records are void of documentation of PTSD symptoms. On his SF 93, dated 23 May 1972, the applicant checked "yes" for "Depression/Excessive Worry" and "Nervous Trouble of Any Kind." There is no indication in his record that he failed to meet military medical retention standards in accordance with AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3, or the provisions in AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) that were applicable to his era of service. d. The lack of documentation of PTSD symptoms in the applicant’s military records does not necessarily indicate he did not have PTSD. At the time of his military service, PTSD symptoms were frequently not recognized. Oftentimes, in these cases, the presence of PTSD has to be inferred from behavioral indicators and such is the case with this applicant. Review of the applicant’s file reveals the presence of a statement by his company commander in which the commander states that "prior to departing AWOL, his character of service had been excellent. [The applicant] has no record of court-martial or nonjudicial punishment." This history of excellent performance followed by the applicant going AWOL could reflect the fact that the applicant felt intense psychological distress at the prospect of returning to the traumatic stressor (Vietnam) and went AWOL to avoid having to face the cause of this psychological distress. e. Based on the information available at this time, there is sufficient evidence to conclude the applicant had undiagnosed PTSD while on active duty. Because PTSD can be associated with avoidant behaviors, there is likely a nexus between the applicant’s PTSD and the misconduct (AWOL) which led to his undesirable discharge from the Army. 21. On 3 November 2016, the applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion for information and to allow him the opportunity to submit comments or a rebuttal; however, no response was received. REFERENCES: 1. AR 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 10 of the version in effect at the time provided that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after court-martial charges were preferred. Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service. Consulting counsel would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses charged, the type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of Veterans Administration benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge. An Undesirable Discharge Certificate would normally be furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service. b. Paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. c. Paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 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 the standard criteria and common language for the classification of mental disorders. In 1980, the APA added PTSD to the third edition of the DSM nosologic classification scheme. Although controversial when first introduced, the PTSD diagnosis has filled an important gap in psychiatric theory and practice. 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." 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 he or she has been exposed to an event that is considered traumatic. 4. The DSM-5th Edition 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. 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 UOTHC may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge. It is also acknowledged that in some cases this undiagnosed condition of PTSD may have been a mitigating factor in the Soldier's misconduct which served as a catalyst for their discharge. Research has also shown that misconduct stemming from PTSD is typically based upon a spur of the moment decision resulting from temporary lapse in judgment; therefore, PTSD is not a likely cause for either premeditated misconduct or misconduct that continues for an extended period of time. 6. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service 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. 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. 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. 9. Corrections Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service of UOTHC. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat-related PTSD or PTSD-related conditions as a causative factor in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Corrections Boards will also exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causeal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. DISCUSSION: 1. The available evidence shows court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant presumably for being AWOL from 5 July 1970 to 27 March 1972 (1 year, 8 months, and 23 days), an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with a punitive discharge. He subsequently requested a chapter 10 discharge. Discharges under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. 2. He voluntarily, willingly, and in writing requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The characterization of his discharge was commensurate with the reason for his discharge and his overall record of military service. 3. Soldiers who suffered from PTSD or PTSD-related conditions and were separated solely for misconduct subsequent to a traumatic event warrant careful consideration for the possible recharacterization of their overall service. A review of the applicant's record shows he may have been subjected to the ordeals of war while serving in the Vietnam and that he had no record of misconduct prior to this service. 4. Subsequent to these experiences, medical evidence shows he was diagnosed with PTSD and the advisory official stated this condition was likely a mitigating factor for the misconduct that led to his discharge UOTHC. 5. 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. 6. 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150017201 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150017201 10 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2