BOARD DATE: 27 July 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150018265 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: 27 July 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150018265 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 voiding his current DD Form 214 for the period ending 20 October 1972 and issuing him a new DD Form 214 showing his character 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. BOARD DATE: 27 July 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150018265 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge under honorable conditions to honorable. 2. The applicant states: * he believes his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) started during his first year in Vietnam * during his second year, he was with the 11th Armored Calvary and during his third year, he was with the 5th Mechanized Infantry * he was in the Cambodia operation and in Laos during Operation 719 * he was a sergeant and a tank commander, and combat engineer was his secondary military occupational specialty * with his constant drinking and mind set, he has fought to deal with PTSD * it is hard but he still believes he was a good Soldier even with the problems he had 3. The applicant provides: * a copy of a DA Form 4980-14 (Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) Certificate), dated 6 July 1969 * his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) * a list of Vietnam campaigns in which he participated and units of assignment * a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), dated 2 September 2004 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 27 April 1966. He reenlisted on 29 April 1967 for a 6-year term of service.[UAu1] 3. The applicant served in Vietnam from on or about 1 July 1968 through on or about 29 June 1969. 4. The applicant served a second tour in Vietnam from on or about 3 May 1970 through on or about 29 September 1971. 5. The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on the following occasions: a. on 8 July 1970, for being absent from his place of duty without authority for 1 day from on or about 6 July 1970 through on or about 7 July 1970; b. on 21 July 1970, for striking a fellow Soldier on or about 15 July 1970; c. on 7 March 1972, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 0730 hours on 28 February 1972 through 0730 hours on 1 March 1972; and d. on 1 June 1972, for disobeying a lawful order on or about 12 May 1972. 6. His DA Form 20 shows he was in an AWOL status during the following periods: * 28 February 1972 * 2 through 17 June 1972 * 19 through 20 September 1972. 7. The applicant's immediate commander recommended his discharge from the Army on 29 September 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 625-212 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unfitness and Unsuitability) by reason of unsuitability with issuance of a general discharge. The stated reasons for the proposed separation action were the applicant's established pattern of behavior, inability to perform the duties of an average Soldier, attitude towards the service in general, and apathy towards military service. 8. The applicant consulted with legal counsel on 29 September 1972 and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and his rights to present his case before a board of officers, to submit a statement in his own behalf, and to be represented by counsel. He elected to waive his rights. He indicated he understood he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of a general discharge under honorable conditions. He also acknowledged he might be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws and he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life as a result of an undesirable discharge under conditions other than honorable. 9. The separation authority approved the recommendation for separation on 13 October 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. The applicant was discharged accordingly on 20 October 1972. His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he completed 6 years, 5 months, and 5 days of total active service and he accrued 19 days of lost time during his second term of enlistment. 10. There is no evidence that indicates the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board Agency for an upgrade of his discharge. 11. The applicant provided: * an ARCOM Certificate that shows he received this award on 6 July 1969 for meritorious service in Vietnam from July 1968 to June 1969 * a letter from the VA, dated 2 September 2004, that shows he was granted service-connected disability compensation for PTSD, rated at 100 percent 12. During the processing of this case, a medical advisory opinion was obtained from the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Staff Psychiatrist. This individual opined: a. Documentation reviewed included the applicant's ABCMR application, his personal statement, VA Rating Decision letter and his military records. The electronic military medical record was not reviewed as it was not in use during the applicant's time in service. b. In his personal statement, the applicant states that his PTSD began during his first tour in Vietnam and, as a result of the PTSD, he began drinking. A review of the VA Rating Decision letter, dated 2 September 2004, indicates the applicant has been rated as 100-percent service connected for PTSD. c. A review of his military records indicates these records are void of documentation of PTSD symptoms. There is no indication in his military records that he failed to meet military medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3, and following the provisions set forth in Army Regulation 635-40 (Disability 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. In the era 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. Such is the case with this applicant. A review of his file reveals that he received "excellent" ratings on all of his performance evaluations from 29 April 1966 to 18 November 1971. Then, suddenly, his performance evaluations from 2 January 1972 until his separation from the Army dropped to "unsatisfactory." Statements from his chain of command during this time frame indicate that he was apathetic, did not take care of his appearance, was very negative in his attitude, and was drinking heavily. His file documents that he overdosed on narcotic pain medication (Darvon) while drinking on 7 August 1972. He also was AWOL multiple times from July 1970 to September 1972. The behaviors manifested by the applicant (being AWOL multiple times, drinking heavily, being substandard in appearance, disobeying orders, getting involved in physical altercations, and overdosing on medication) can all be explained by the development of in-service PTSD. PTSD is associated with avoidance behaviors (being AWOL, failing to repair), self-medication (drinking alcohol heavily), negative alterations in cognitions and mood (substandard appearance, negative attitude), engagement in reckless, self-destructive behaviors (getting into physical altercations, overdosing on medication, disobeying orders). e. There is sufficient evidence to conclude that the applicant had undiagnosed PTSD while serving on active duty. Because PTSD can be associated with avoidant behaviors, self-medication, negative alterations in cognitions/mood, and reckless and self-destructive behaviors, there is likely a nexus between the applicant's PTSD and the misconduct which led to his general discharge under honorable conditions from the Army. 13. The advisory opinion was provided to the applicant to give him the opportunity to provide additional comments or a rebuttal. However, no response was received. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability. Paragraph 6b stated an individual was subject to separation for unsuitability when one or more of the following conditions existed: (1) inaptitude; (2) character and behavior disorders; (3) apathy (lack of appropriate interest, defective attitudes, and inability to expend effort constructively); (4) alcoholism; and (5) enuresis. When separation for unsuitability was warranted, an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual's entire record. 2. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), 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. 3. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), chapter 7, addresses trauma and stress or related disorders. The DSM is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and provides standard criteria and common language for classification of mental disorders. 4. In 1980, the APA added PTSD to the third edition of its 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." 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 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. 6. The fifth edition of the DSM 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 criterion assesses functioning, and the eighth criterion clarifies symptoms as not attributable to a substance or co-occurring medical condition. 7. 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. 8. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards and Service Boards for Correction of Military Records 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. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends his general discharge under honorable conditions should be upgraded to honorable based on a diagnosis of PTSD. 2. The evidence shows the applicant's separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable law and regulations in effect at the time. Additionally, the characterization of his service was commensurate with the reasons for discharge and overall record of military service. 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. Soldiers who suffered from PTSD and were separated solely for misconduct subsequent to a traumatic event warrant careful consideration for the possible recharacterization of their overall service. 4. In the applicant's case, his record of indiscipline includes NJP on four occasions for acts of misconduct that include being absent from his place of duty for 1 day, striking a fellow Soldier, and disobeying a lawful order. However, the ARBA Psychiatrist noted the applicant received "excellent" ratings on all of his performance evaluations from 29 April 1966 to 18 November 1971. Then, suddenly, his performance evaluations from 2 January 1972 until his separation from the Army dropped to "unsatisfactory." The ARBA Psychiatrist concluded the behaviors manifested by the applicant (being AWOL, drinking heavily, being substandard in appearance, disobeying orders, getting involved in physical altercations, and overdosing on medication) can all be explained by the development of in-service PTSD. 5. The available documentation reasonably supports the existence of PTSD at the time of the applicant's acts of misconduct that led to his general discharge. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// [UAu1]Applicant does not provide document to verify this. ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150018265 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150018265 7 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2