BOARD DATE: 28 November 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002842 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: 28 November 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002842 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: 28 November 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002842 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 the previous Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) decision that was promulgated in Docket Number AR2003099843 on 6 April 2004. Specifically, he requests his under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states he suffered from, and continues to suffer from, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) resulting from his military service in the Republic of Vietnam. Shortly after he returned from Vietnam to the U.S., he was reported as absent without leave (AWOL) for a period of 128 days; however, he was not AWOL, since he had been discharged in Vietnam. 3. The applicant provides: * DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) for the period ending 22 June 1972 * Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) letter, dated 27 April 1978 * ADRB Case Report and Directive, Case Number AD7X009582A * ABCMR Record of Proceedings, Docket Number AR2003099843, dated 6 April 2004 * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision, dated 10 December 2013 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records that were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR2003099843 on 6 April 2004. 2. The applicant provides his VA Rating Decision, dated 10 December 2013, which was not considered by the Board in its earlier consideration of his case. This rating decision constitutes new evidence that now warrants consideration. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 October 1969. Following the completion of his initial entry training, he completed a period of overseas service in the Federal Republic of Germany. 4. The applicant served in the Republic of Vietnam from on or about 20 November 1970 through on or about 17 February 1972. During that period, he was assigned to the 85th and 528th Maintenance Companies, where he performed the duties of a general vehicle repairman. 5. The applicant received nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on at least nine occasions between 28 January and 25 October 1971. NJP was administered primarily for his failure to be at the prescribed place at the prescribed time on numerous occasions; however, in one instance, he received NJP for disobeying a lawful order. 6. The applicant record contains a DA Form 2627-1 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ) that shows that as a consequence of the NJP he received on 25 October 1971, he was reduced in rank/grade from private first class/E-3 to private/E-1. His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows the reduction was ordered by Special Orders Number 325, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Support Command, Vietnam, on or about 28 October 1971. 7. The applicant's commander, on 13 November 1971, recommended his appearance before a board of officers, convened in accordance with Army Regulation 635-212 (Discharge – Unfitness and Unsuitability) to determine whether he should be discharged before his expiration term of service date. His commander cited, as the reason for his recommendation, the applicant's demonstrated unfitness for further service. 8. The applicant consulted with counsel on 19 November 1971 and was advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. He was further advised that if separated, he would likely receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. a. The applicant requested consideration of his case by, and personal appearance before, a board of officers, and he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. b. He indicated that he was aware that as a result of the issuance of an undesirable discharge, he may be ineligible for any or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and state laws, and he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life based on the issuance of an undesirable discharge. 9. The Commanding General, U.S. Army Support Command, Vietnam, approved a waiver of the rehabilitative transfer requirements in the applicant's case, as specified in Army Regulation 635-212, and ordered that a board of officers be convened to consider the applicant's discharge for unfitness. 10. A board of officers convened on 10 January 1972 and determined the applicant was unfit for further service and should be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, based on unfitness. The Summary of Proceedings indicates several witnesses testified to the applicant's drug use and related issues. The board forwarded its findings to the convening authority. 11. The Commanding General, U.S. Army Support Command, Vietnam, approved the board's findings and recommendation on 30 January 1972 and directed the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, chapter 6a(1), by reason of unfitness. The Commanding General further directed that the applicant be: * assigned to the appropriate transfer station for separation from the service * returned to the continental U.S. * reduced to the lowest enlisted grade * furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate 12. The applicant was assigned, on or about 21 February 1972, to the Medical Holding Company at the General Leonard Wood Army Hospital at Fort Leonard Wood, MO, for the purpose of receiving a physical examination prior to his separation from service. 13. A DA Form 188 (Extract Copy of Morning Report), dated 20 April 1972, shows the applicant was reported as AWOL on or about 16 March 1972 and was dropped from the rolls of the Army on or about 17 April 1972. He was returned to military control on or about 5 June 1972. 14. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 22 June 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. His DD Form 214 at the time showed his service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions and he was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He completed 2 years, 4 months, and 18 days of service with 123 days of lost time. 15. The applicant's records are void of documents that substantiate his treatment for PTSD, PTSD-like symptoms (e.g., anxiety or depression), or other mental/behavioral health conditions prior to his date of discharge. 16. The ADRB considered the applicant's request for a discharge upgrade, under the Department of Defense Special Discharge Review Program (DoD SDRP), and approved his request on 24 June 1977. The applicant's DD Form 214 was administratively reissued and was corrected to show his service characterized as under honorable conditions (general). 17. The ADRB reconsidered the applicant's case and affirmed his DoD SDRP discharge upgrade on 27 April 1978. 18. The applicant was issued a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) on 30 May 1978, which corrected his DD Form 214 by showing his discharge was reviewed under the provision of Public Law 95-126 and a determination was made that a change in the characterization of his service was warranted by DoD Directive. 19. The applicant applied to the ABCMR on 25 September 2003, requesting that his under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The Board denied his petition for relief in Docket Number AR2003099843 on 6 April 2004. In a statement provided in that case, he acknowledged his past drug use and its effects on his service but did not attribute his performance, or lack thereof, to PTSD. 20. The applicant provides his VA Rating Decision, dated 10 December 2013, which shows he was granted service-connected status for PTSD (50 percent (%) disabling), effective 30 July 2013. 21. An advisory opinion was obtained on 29 November 2016 from the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Staff Psychiatrist, who stated and opined: a. The applicant served in the Army from 3 October 1969 to 22 June 1972 in military occupational specialty 63C20 (Truck Vehicle Mechanic). He served a tour of duty in the Republic of Vietnam from 25 November 1970 to 18 February 1972. He was discharged on 22 June 1972, Under Conditions Other Than Honorable Discharge in accordance with Army Regulation 635-212, chapter 6a (1) for unfitness. His misconduct at the time of his discharge consisted of multiple counts of failing to be at his prescribed place of duty, one count of being in an off limits area, one count of disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer and one count of being AWOL from 16 March 1972 until 16 June 1972. His discharge was upgraded to Under Honorable Conditions (General) on 24 June 1977, under the DoD SDRP. He applied to the ABCMR for a discharge upgrade and was denied on 15 April 2004. He is now applying to the ABCMR contending he had undiagnosed PTSD at the time of his discharge, which led to the misconduct. b. The ARBA Psychiatrist was asked to review this case. Information provided by the applicant and ABCMR was reviewed to include the applicant's application to the ABCMR, his VA medical documentation, his military personnel records and his military medical records. The military electronic medical record (AHLTA) was not reviewed, as this system was not in use during the applicant's time in service. c. The VA medical documentation submitted by the applicant consists of a VA Rating Decision letter, which indicates he was found to be 50% service-connected for PTSD as of 30 July 2013. His symptoms include anxiety, depression, panic attacks, impaired sleep, and impaired social and occupational functioning. d. A review of his military medical records reveals that he underwent a Mental Status Evaluation on 26 October 1971, in which he was felt to be mentally responsible and able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right. He was found to meet the military retention standards of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3. e. A further review of the applicant's military medical records indicates he had a serious drug addiction problem while in Vietnam. According to a Psychiatric Narrative Summary (Standard Form (SF) 502), dated 22 February 1972, he was using "15-20 caps of heroin per day by smoking, snorting and mostly injecting" while in Vietnam. According to this note, he lost 45 pounds due to this drug use. A Medical Condition Physical Profile Record (DA Form 3349), dated 22 February 1972, documented that he had a "history of drug abuse – heroin" and "no psychiatric diagnosis now." A second Psychiatric Narrative Summary (SF 502), dated 14 March 1972, indicates that the applicant attributed his drug use to "being away from home" and "because of fear." This summary goes on to state that he was air evacuated to the Fort Leonard Wood Drug Rehabilitation Program but, upon arriving in Missouri, he went AWOL instead for 11 days. f. The applicant's military personnel records indicate his supervisors and chain of command did not feel he was a bad Soldier. Rather, they felt that much of his misconduct was due to drug abuse. Prior to reporting to Vietnam, he only had one minor Article 15. While in Vietnam, his supervisors note that he was enrolled in the Drug Amnesty Program but withdrew. In total, while in Vietnam, he accrued 12 Article 15s. Overall, he had 123 days of lost time due to AWOL. g. A review of the applicant's military records indicates no symptoms of PTSD per se. The lack of documentation of PTSD symptoms in his military records does not necessarily indicate he did not have PTSD while in the military. In the era of his military service, PTSD was not a recognized diagnosis. Consequently, the diagnosis often has to be inferred from the available documentation and from behavioral indicators. Such is the situation in this case. Prior to going to Vietnam, the applicant had only one minor Article 15. After arriving in Vietnam, however, he accrued multiple Article 15s for failing to be at his prescribed place of duty. Statements by his chain of command indicate that they felt he was oversleeping due to his drug abuse problem. In a Board of Officers Proceeding, dated 10 January 1972, his Company Commander testified, "All of his problems are drug related. He never refused work. He was a fairly good Soldier." This sentiment was echoed by several of his supervising noncommissioned officers (NCOs). The Psychiatric Narrative Summary, dated 14 March 1972, documents the applicant as attributing his drug use to "being away from home" and "because of fear." Using drugs to diminish fear in a war zone is synonymous with using drugs to self-medicate PTSD symptoms. h. In conclusion, based on the available documentation, it is the medical opinion of the ARBA Psychiatrist that the applicant suffered from undiagnosed PTSD while on active duty. Because PTSD can be associated with the use of drugs to self-medicate PTSD symptoms, there is likely a nexus between the applicant's PTSD associated drug use and the offenses of failing to be at his prescribed place of duty, disobeying a lawful order, and being in an off limits area. Additionally, there is a likely nexus between the applicant's PTSD and the offense of being AWOL, as PTSD is associated with avoidant behaviors. In conclusion, the applicant's PTSD is considered mitigating for the offenses that led to his discharge from the Army. 22. The medical advisory opinion was provided to the applicant on 5 December 2016, for his review and to allow him the opportunity to submit additional comments or a rebuttal. He replied on 10 December 2016, noting that: a. His misconduct resulted from his drug use in Vietnam. He would never have been in an off limits area or disobeyed any type of order if he would have been in his right mind. He would like to explain his situation, specifically, what he believes caused his poor judgment to begin consuming drugs. Shortly after he started his tour, he was given perimeter guard duty by the Marble Mountains. He was asked by another Soldier if he would swap guard towers with him so he could be with a friend. He asked the other Soldier if they would get into any trouble and the other Soldier replied no. He swapped with the other Soldier and about 15 minutes into his guard duty period, the tower that he swapped out of was blown up by a booby trap. He never found out what happened to those guys but watched them get blown out of the tower. From that day forward, he was completely lost in drugs. It was a very bad decision on his part, but to settle him down, he was offered some heroin from the other guy in the guard tower. All of his trouble started from then on. He has had nothing but troubles in his mind since that day, especially throughout the remainder of his time in Vietnam. b. The advisory opinion notes he was using 15-20 caps of heroin per day. The truth is he's not exactly sure how much he was using but if it was one cap, it was too much. Once he started using, his life at that time went downhill. c. While he was in Vietnam, he was entered into a drug program and he found out that after he completed the course, he would be sent back to his unit to finish his duty. The problem with that was he was going to be put right back into the same group of men who were also drug users, so he decided (with poor judgment) to leave the drug program. The reported lost time or AWOL was not 123 days in Vietnam but only three. He was court-martialed and was discharged in Vietnam, or so he thought. When he returned to the U.S., they wanted him to go through another drug rehabilitation program. He had not been home for 15 months and he left Fort Leonard Wood thinking that he had already been discharged. He was apprehended in Washington, IL, on 3 June 1972, after a total of 101 days, and was put in the stockade at Fort Leonard Wood for 19 more days before he was handed the discharge papers he should have been given upon his arrival from Vietnam. That is a total of 120 days of lost time after his discharge in Vietnam. d. He attributes his problems with Article 15s to his drug use. He admits he made a very poor choice at the time when he decided to use drugs, but it removed the fear that was there. As most of his NCOs said, he was a good Soldier. He was a very good mechanic but was lost due to the drugs. Still, to this day, he has nightmares of the night he pulled that guard duty and often blames himself for not being the one that was blown out of that tower. e. He would like to say he was lost for 17 years after he returned to the States. He drank heavily because of what that time did to him. Since 1989, he has been completely clean of any alcohol and drugs. He has been living a very productive life in society. He recently retired and after all these years, he still has to deal with his thoughts. He has recently been diagnosed with a bad heart and has been through a lot of physical problems. He only wishes he could go back and change those bad decisions in his life but he can't. f. He asks that the Board upgrade his discharge to fully honorable. He did his tour of duty and still lives it every day. He was 19 years old and he made very bad decision and has suffered for it many times over. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the policy for administrative separation for unfitness and unsuitability. 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: * frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities * sexual perversion * drug addiction * an established pattern of shirking * 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. 2. Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Separations), now in effect, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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. 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-5) 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. (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. (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. (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). (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 (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 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. 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 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. 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 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. 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 UOTHC characterization of service. b. 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 causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. 10. The Under Secretary of Defense provided clarifying guidance to Service DRBs and Service BCM/NRs on 25 August 2017. The memorandum directed them to give liberal consideration to veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD, TBI, sexual assault, or sexual harassment. a. Guidance documents are not limited to UOTHC discharge characterizations but rather apply to any petition seeking discharge relief including requests to change the narrative reason, re-enlistment codes, and upgrades from general to honorable characterizations. b. An honorable discharge characterization does not require flawless military service. Many veterans are separated with an honorable characterization despite some relatively minor or infrequent misconduct. c. Liberal consideration does not mandate an upgrade. Relief may be appropriate, however, for minor misconduct commonly associated with mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; or behaviors commonly associated with sexual assault or sexual harassment; and some significant misconduct sufficiently justified or outweighed by the facts and circumstances. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge from under honorable conditions (general) to fully honorable. He contends he suffered from, and continues to suffer from, PTSD resulting from his military service in the Republic of Vietnam. 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. Soldiers who suffered from PTSD and were separated solely for misconduct subsequent to a traumatic event warrant careful consideration for the possible re-characterization of their overall service. 4. A review of the applicant's record and the evidence he provides shows: a. He was subjected to the ordeals of war while serving in the Republic of Vietnam. While on guard duty, he switched towers with another Soldier and witnessed the tower he was supposed to occupy being blown up by a booby trap. He contends he watched his fellow Soldiers get blown out of that tower, and from that day forward, he was completely lost in drugs. b. He was separated for unfitness subsequent to his service in Vietnam, after numerous instances of misconduct and NJP while in Vietnam. It appears his drug usage was a contributing factor in his poor duty performance. 5. Subsequent to his experiences in Vietnam, the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and/or PTSD-related symptoms by a competent mental health professional, who determined his PTSD to be service-connected. 6. In the advisory opinion of 29 November 2016, the ARBA advisory official noted that based on the available documentation, it appears the applicant suffered from undiagnosed PTSD while on active duty. Because PTSD can be associated with the use of drugs to self-medicate PTSD symptoms, there is likely a nexus between the applicant's PTSD associated drug use and the offenses of failing to be at his prescribed place of duty, disobeying a lawful order, and being in an off limits area. Additionally, there is a likely nexus between the applicant's PTSD and the offense of being AWOL, as PTSD is associated with avoidant behaviors. In conclusion, the applicant's PTSD is considered mitigating for the offenses that led to his discharge from the Army. 7. The applicant's discharge was upgraded to under honorable conditions (general) under the DoD SDRP, and the decision to upgrade his characterization of service was later affirmed. 8. 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150017490 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160002842 15 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2