SAMR-RB 7 December 2017 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, AR20160006048 1. Reference the attached Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings, dated 21 November 2017, 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 10, 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. I direct no further correction be made to the record of the individual concerned. 3. Request necessary administrative action be taken to effect the correction of records as indicated no later than 09 April 2018. 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 : Encl Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) BOARD DATE: 21 November 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160006048 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: 21 November 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160006048 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: 21 November 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160006048 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 discharge under other than honorable conditions. 2. The applicant states: a.  He was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) while he was in the Army and during the "Tet Offensive III." b.  He should have been afforded health care treatment for his PTSD due to his combat stress, PTSD, the added stress of his father's passing in December 1967 and the need for closure and assistance in his father's burial. c.  His severe depression and anxiety was caused by his service in Vietnam. d.  After filing for Supplemental Security Income for type II diabetes mellitus and ischemic heart disease, he was told to file for disability through the Department of Veterans Affairs due to his exposure to Agent Orange. However, he is unable to do this due to the character of his discharge. His ill health is severe and he has 24-percent lung capacity. 3. The applicant provides: * character-reference letter from J____ R. B____, undated * New Vision Counseling Therapy Progress Note, dated 24 July 1998 * DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) * DA Form 20B (Insert Sheet to DA Form 20) * Headquarters, Special Troops, U.S. Army Training Center and Fort Leonard Wood, Special Court-Martial Order Number 1143, dated 19 June 1968 * Headquarters, Special Troops, U.S. Army Training Center and Fort Leonard Wood, Special Court-Martial Order Number 1934, dated 8 November 1968 * letter from the Commander, Headquarters Company Basic Combat Training Committee Group, Fort Leonard Wood, dated 8 February 1969 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 November 1966. 2. On 24 April 1967, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being absent without leave (AWOL) on or about 3 April 1967 until on or about 20 April 1967. His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $50.00 per month for 2 months, restriction to the limits of Fort Sill for 12 days, and extra duty for 12 days. 3. His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he departed the continental United States en route to Vietnam on or about 8 June 1967. He was assigned to Battery B, 8th Battalion, 6th Artillery Regiment, 1st Infantry Division, effective 17 June 1967. He departed Vietnam en route to the continental United States on or about 7 December 1967. He participated in the Vietnam Counteroffensive Phase III Campaign during this period. 4. Headquarters Special Troops, U.S. Army Training Center and Fort Leonard Wood, Special Court-Martial Order Number 1143, dated 19 June 1968, shows he pled guilty and he was found guilty of being AWOL from on or about 18 January 1968 until on or about 7 February 1968 and from on or about 10 February 1968 until on or about 20 May 1968. He was sentenced to forfeiture of $68.00 pay per month for 4 months and confinement at hard labor for 4 months. 5. Headquarters Special Troops, U.S. Army Training Center and Fort Leonard Wood, Special Court-Martial Order Number 1192, dated 26 June 1968, shows, in part, the unexecuted portion of his sentence to confinement at hard labor for 4 months was suspended for 3 months at which time, unless the suspension was sooner vacated, the suspended portion of his sentence was to be remitted without further action. 6. Headquarters Special Troops, U.S. Army Training Center and Fort Leonard Wood, Special Court-Martial Order Number 1934, dated 8 November 1968, shows he pled guilty and he was found guilty of being AWOL from on or about 24 July 1968 until on or about 25 July 1968 and from on or about 29 July 1968 until on or about 7 October 1968. He was sentenced to forfeiture of $70.00 pay per month for 6 months and confinement at hard labor for 6 months. 8. U.S. Army Correctional Training Facility Special Court-Martial Order Number 506, dated 27 December 1968, shows the unexecuted portions of the applicant's sentence to confinement at hard labor and forfeitures would be remitted on 8 January 1969. 9. A DA Form 268 (Report of Suspension of Favorable Personnel Action), dated 28 January 1969, shows he was reported as being AWOL effective 10 January 1969. 10. A DD Form 553 (Absentee Wanted by the Armed Forces), undated, shows he was dropped from the unit rolls as a deserter effective 7 February 1969. 11. He provided a letter from the Commander, Headquarters Company Basic Combat Training Committee Group, to his mother, dated 8 February 1969, wherein she was advised of his AWOL status and the consequences associated with his AWOL. She was urged to notify his unit of any information concerning his status. 12. His records show he was returned to military control on 17 March 1969. 13. Headquarters Special Troops, U.S. Army Training Center and Fort Leonard Wood, Special Court-Martial Order Number 428, dated 9 April 1969, shows he pled and he was found guilty of being AWOL from on or about 10 January 1969 until on or about 17 March 1969. He was sentenced to forfeiture of $97.00 pay per month for 6 months and confinement at hard labor for 6 months. 14. Headquarters Special Troops, U.S. Army Training Center Engineer and Fort Leonard Wood, Special Court-Martial Order Number 106, dated 13 September 1969, remitted the unexecuted portion of the applicant's sentence to confinement at hard labor for 6 months. 15. On 18 September 1969, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unfitness and Unsuitability). His service was characterized as under conditions other than honorable and he was assigned separation program number (SPN) 28B (unfitness). He completed 1 year, 2 months, and 2 days of creditable active military service and he accrued 597 days of lost time. 16. He provided a character-reference letter from J____ R. B____, undated, wherein he states he has known the applicant for about 15 to 20 years. About 1 year or so after his entrance in the Army, the applicant seemed like a very different person. The applicant's father had passed away during that time and all the applicant talked about was Vietnam and he death of his father. Mr. B____ stated he moved out of state for several years and when he met the applicant again, the applicant was drinking heavily, talking irrationally, and seemed to have very severe mental and health problems. A year later, he ran into the applicant again and the applicant had a broken leg and was still drinking and talking about Vietnam. He states the applicant needs some mental and health assistance. 17. On 21 August 2017, the applicant provided additional medical documentation showing his treatments at the Southeast Cancer Center; prescribed medications; and New Vision Counseling therapy progress notes, assessment, individual treatment plan, and aftercare plan. 18. On 22 August 2017, the Army Review Boards Agency Clinical Psychologist provided an advisory opinion in which she stated it was likely that PTSD-like symptoms contributed to the applicant's misconduct that led to his separation from active duty. She further stated, in part: a. New Vision Counseling records, dated 12 January 2016, indicated the applicant had a diagnosis of acute PTSD, to include symptoms of nightmares, panic attacks, paranoia, and flashbacks. The applicant's records are void of further supporting medical information of documentation regarding the nature of severity of PTSD symptoms or continued receipt of behavioral health services. b.  There is evidence indicating the applicant was experiencing a significant amount of stress and possibly PTSD-like symptoms following his return from Vietnam. PTSD-like symptoms appear to have negatively impacted his motivation to continue to serve in the military and can be associated with avoidant behaviors such as AWOL. c.  Given that PTSD was not recognized as a diagnosis during the applicant's time in service, it is unlikely that he or anyone else recognized and attributed his misconduct and periods of AWOL to the effects of his deployed experiences. Supporting medical documentation regarding the diagnosis of PTSD was provided by New Vision Counseling where the applicant received mental health services. 19. On 25 August 2017, a copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for review and for an opportunity to provide a response or additional evidence. He did not respond. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the policy for administrative separation for unfitness. It provided 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, and/or an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts. This regulation also prescribed that an undesirable discharge was normally issued unless the particular circumstances warranted a general or an honorable discharge. 2. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Codes), in effect at the time, provided the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPN to be entered on the DD Form 214. The regulation stipulated that SPN 28B was the appropriate code to assign to Soldiers separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unfitness (frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities). 3. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. This regulation provides that: a.  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.  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. 4. 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 the classification of mental disorders. 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. 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 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. 8. 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, 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, on 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 evidence of record shows he had two instances of nonjudicial punishment, three special courts-martial convictions, and a total of 597 days of lost time. He was afforded multiple opportunities for rehabilitation, to no avail. 2. All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering the available facts at the time. 3. He provided evidence showing he was diagnosed with PTSD by a licensed professional counselor with New Vision Counseling in 2016. 4. At the time of his discharge, PTSD was largely unrecognized by the medical community and Department of Defense. However, both the medical community and Department of Defense 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. 5. 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. 6. The Army Review Boards Agency Clinical Psychologist opined a causal nexus between the applicant's behavioral health diagnoses and his misconduct existed. Accepting this opinion would be a basis for granting relief. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160006048 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160006048 8 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2