BOARD DATE: 14 September 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160008415 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: 19 September 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160008415 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: 19 September 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160008415 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 upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable discharge. 2. He states he believes he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) brought on by the fear of having to go to combat in Vietnam. He adds he was only 18 years of age at the time and stress caused him to go absent without leave (AWOL). 3. He provides two DD Forms 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge). 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 (RA) on 30 September 1971 at the age of 17 years and 3 months. He was honorably discharged on 21 December 1972 for immediate reenlistment which occurred the following day. 3. The complete facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge action are not available for review in this case. However, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 7 June 1973 under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), for the good of the service in lieu of a trial by court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions character of service. This DD Form 214 shows a continuous period of service from the day of enlistment (30 September 1971) to his day of discharge 7  June 1973. It also shows he completed 1 year, 5 months, and 15 days of active duty service with 83 days of lost time from 17 February 1973 to 8 May 1973. 4. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 5. On 9 January 2017, the ABCMR obtained an advisory opinion from a psychologist, Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA), who states the evidence provided does not support the applicant's request for an upgrade. The psychologist states: a. Prior to joining the Army, the applicant had legal problems as a juvenile in 1968 for being "incorrigible." He was also accused of battery and malicious mischief in May 1970; however, these accusations were dismissed. There are no available records that shows he ever had a diagnosis of PTSD or any other behavioral-health condition. The applicant has provided insufficient evidence to mitigate his misconduct. b. He further states the applicant’s medical records do not at the time of his discharge reasonably support him having had a boardable medical condition for that period. He met the mental-health standards in AR 40-501 (Medical Services-Standards of Medical Fitness) and the provisions set forth in AR 635-40 (Personnel Separation-Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) in effect at the time. The available case material did not support the existence of a mitigating mental health condition and his record was void of a separation medical examination. Based on available behavioral-health evidence, there is no mitigation for reason of psychiatric condition for the applicant’s misconduct. 6. On 8 February 2017, the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for his acknowledgement and/or response. 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 an individual whose conduct rendered him triable by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge could request a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of a trial. The regulation required that there have been no element of coercion involved in the submission of such a request and the individual was provided an opportunity to consult with counsel. The individual was required to sign the request indicating he understood that he could receive service characterized as UOTHC, the adverse nature of such a discharge, and the possible consequences thereof. The regulation required that the request be forwarded through channels to the general court-martial convening authority. An undesirable discharge would normally be furnished an individual who was discharged for the good of the service. b. 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. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized it is issued to an individual 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 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." 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 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. 4. 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. 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. 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. 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? * 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? 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. 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. DISCUSSION: 1. His record is void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge action. However, his discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200, indicates that he voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of a trial by court-martial for presumably being AWOL. 2. There is no evidence showing he has been diagnosed with PTSD. Additionally, a review of his case by a psychologist found no documentation in his military record that shows symptoms of PTSD existed during or following his military service. The psychologist stated that based on available behavioral-health evidence, there is no mitigation by reason of a psychiatric condition for the applicant’s misconduct. 3. The available evidence shows the applicant was 17 years and 3 months old at the time he enlisted in the RA and 18 years and 10 months old at the time of his discharge. There is no evidence that indicates he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160008415 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160008415 6 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2