BOARD DATE: 14 November 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000797 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: 14 November 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000797 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 showing the FSM was honorably discharged on 17 June 1974 and issuing him a new separation document effective 17 June 1974 indicating such. ____________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: 14 November 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000797 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, the mother of the deceased former service member (FSM) requests, in effect, reconsideration of the FSM’s appeal to upgrade his undesirable discharge to honorable. 2. The applicant states: a. Her son entered the armed forces as a young teenager to serve his country and make a better life for himself. He left home as a normal, mentally healthy young man. He had never been in any trouble and was discharged from the Army a different man. b. She believes her son had a mental breakdown while stationed overseas. The mental breakdown was beyond his control. She believes he is entitled to a headstone from the military. She is 90 years old and would like to see that headstone on his grave. 3. The applicant provides copies of a Georgia Death Certificate and a DD Form 258A (Undesirable Discharge Certificate). 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 ABCMR originally considered the FSM’s request for an upgrade of his discharge on 20 July 1977. The Record of Proceedings for that consideration is not available. 3. The FSM died on 8 May 2012. 4. The FSM's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 31 August 1972 at the age of 18. He completed the training requirements and was awarded military occupational specialty 63B (Wheeled Vehicle Repairman). 5. He was frequently counseled for acts of indiscipline. His record shows he was counseled for: * failing to make formations * failing to go to work * being absent from his place of duty * a poor attitude * complete indifference towards duty and responsibility 6. His record shows he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) as follows: * on 19 October 1973, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty and being derelict in the performance of his duties * on 4 December 1973, for abandoning his guard post * on 11 February 1974, for absenting himself from his appointed place of duty on two occasions and failing to report at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty 7. On 12 March 1974, he was convicted by a special court-martial of one specification of failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, one specification of absenting himself from his appointed place of duty, and one specification of willfully disobeying a lawful order. The court sentenced him to reduction to pay grade of E-1, forfeiture of $217 pay for 1 month, and 30 days of restriction. 8. The FSM’s immediate commander notified the FSM of his intent to initiate action to eliminate him from the Army under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) due to unfitness. Specifically, the immediate commander cited the FSM's lack of self-discipline, that he worked on his own schedule, and that he rarely went to work or formations. In addition, the FSM was uncooperative and refused to conform to even the most minimal standards of personal conduct, military appearance, and performance. He had been counseled on numerous occasions to no avail. 9. On 4 April 1974, the FSM acknowledged he had been notified of the pending separation action against him. He consulted with legal counsel and he was advised that discharge action was being initiated against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13; the effect on future enlistment in the Army; the possible effects of an other than honorable discharge; and of the procedures and rights that were available to him. Further, the FSM acknowledged he understood if he were issued an undesirable discharge he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and he may be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws. He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 10. Following the FSM’s acknowledgement, his immediate commander initiated action to separate him from the Army under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200, due to unfitness, frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. The recommendation for separation was approved with a discharge under other than honorable conditions. 11. The FSM’s DD Form 214 confirms he was discharged on 17 June 1974 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. He completed 1 year, 8 months, and 11 days of net active service. 12. In May 1975, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. That board determined he was properly discharged. 13. In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) medical staff. The ARBA psychiatrist noted that: a. No civilian medical documentation of FSM’s mental illness was provided. The electronic military medical record was not reviewed as it was not in use during the FSM’s service. b. A separation Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 4 April 1974, describes the FSM as having no significant mental illness. It states he was mentally responsible, able to adhere to the right, he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings, and he met retention standards prescribed in chapter 3, Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness). c. A Standard Form (SF) 93 (Report of Medical History), dated 4 April 1974, shows the FSM endorses the following: depression/excessive worry, loss of memory, nervous trouble of any sort, and periods of unconsciousness. d. The FSM’s military records contain a notarized document submitted by his family when they were requesting copies of his military records. The document is title “Petition for the Appointment of a Guardian for an Alleged Incapacitated Adult.” This petition states the FSM was incapacitated by mental illness and chronic use of drugs and alcohol. He had been arrested multiple times for shoplifting and forgery because of extended periods of alcohol and drug intoxication. He had a history of violence when intoxicated. The petition states the FSM had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and he had had repeated confinements at Southwestern State Hospital in Thomasville, Georgia. The petition states the applicant had no income and his only assets were his clothes. In the petition, his sister stated the FSM was "unable to maintain a train of thought and forgets very easily." e. When reviewing only the military records, this case looks very cut and dried. The FSM was a poor Soldier who did not care about the Army. However, when viewed through the lens of schizophrenia, a different explanation for the FSM's undesirable behavior becomes apparent. The FSM’s sister has indicated in her application for guardianship that the FSM had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is a chronic, long-term illness that most commonly begins in early adulthood. Usually, it is comprised of positive symptoms (hallucinations, delusions, paranoia) and negative symptoms (apathy). Early signs of schizophrenia are typically vague and easily attributed to some other cause (such as laziness). Schizophrenia can produce the following symptoms: (1) avolition – decreased drive to pursue goal directed behavior; (2) apathy –decrease in goal-directed behavior leading to a lack of productivity, lack of effort, lack of initiative, lack of perseverance, lack of concern about one's personal problems, lack of emotional responsiveness; and (3) impairment in self-care (poor personal hygiene such as not bathing or not wearing clean clothes). Additionally, one can see social isolation, poverty of speech (i.e., saying very little in conversations) and forgetfulness. f. It is clear from the FSM’s military record that he exhibited many of the behaviors and symptoms enumerated above. He was seen as unmotivated, lazy, undisciplined, indifferent, unkempt, unprofessional and uncooperative, all features seen in early schizophrenia. The fact that he endorsed depression/excessive worry, loss of memory, nervous trouble of sort and periods of unconsciousness on his separation Report of Medical History indicates he was aware that something was wrong with him psychiatrically. The fact that he refused to sign for copies of his Enlisted Evaluation Report indicates he may have been experiencing paranoia, a common symptom of certain types of schizophrenia. g. Given the fact that his separation physical examination was normal, one can speculate that the 4-5 week long hospitalization just prior to separation was, in all likelihood, a psychiatric hospitalization. Psychiatric hospitalizations are typically long in duration in comparison to medical or surgical hospitalizations. As there are no records of this hospitalization, corroboration of this fact cannot be made. h. The ARBA psychiatrist concluded the results of the FSM’s Mental Status Evaluation, dated 4 April 1974, notwithstanding, it is her opinion that the FSM was in the early stages of schizophrenia while on active duty. As explained above, there is likely a nexus between this illness and the offenses which led to his discharge from the Army. As such, the diagnosis of schizophrenia is considered mitigating for these offenses. 14. The mother of the FSM was provided a copy of the advisory opinion on 9 January 2017, in order to allow time (30 days) for rebuttal or comments. She did not respond. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13, in effect at the time, contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unfitness. It provided, in pertinent part, that individuals would be discharged by reason of unfitness when their records were characterized by one or more of the following: a) frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities; b) sexual perversion; c) drug addiction; d) an established pattern of shirking; and/or e) an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts. This regulation prescribed that an undesirable discharge was normally issued unless the particular circumstances warranted a general or an honorable discharge. a. Paragraph 3-7a, states 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. b. 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. On 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged UOTHC and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service. 3. On 25 August 2017 the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to DRBs and BCM/NRs when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharges due in whole or in part to: mental health conditions, including PTSD; traumatic brain injury (TBI); sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Boards are to give liberal consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part to those conditions or experiences. The guidance further describes evidence sources and criteria and requires Boards to consider the conditions or experiences presented in evidence as potential mitigation for misconduct that led to the discharge. DISCUSSION: 1. The FSM's records reveal a history of misconduct which includes one instance of a court-martial, three instances of NJP, and multiple negative counseling for various infractions. He was provided multiple opportunities for rehabilitation by various members of his chain of command but failed to respond constructively. Accordingly, his chain of command initiated separation action against him with the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 2. His separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. The type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge were therefore appropriate considering all the facts of the case. Based on his overall record, the FSM’s service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct of duty for Army personnel. 3. Records show the FSM was between 18 and 19 years of age at the time of his offenses. 4. As the ARBA medical advisor pointed out, schizophrenia is a chronic, long-term illness that most commonly begins in early adulthood. When viewed through the lens of schizophrenia, a different explanation for the FSM's undesirable behaviors becomes apparent. It is clear from the FSM’s military record that he exhibited many of the behaviors and symptoms associated with early signs of schizophrenia. The fact that he endorsed depression/excessive worry, loss of memory, nervous trouble of sort, and periods of unconsciousness on his separation Report of Medical History indicates he was aware that something was wrong with him psychiatrically. 5. It is reasonable to presume there is likely a nexus between his illness and the offenses which led to his discharge from the Army. As such, the diagnosis of schizophrenia is considered mitigating for the FSM’s offenses. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160000797 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160000797 7 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2