ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Record of Proceedings


BOARD DATE: 24 August 2020 
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180000305

APPLICANT REQUESTS: Though counsel, reconsideration of the previous Army 
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) decision as promulgated in Docket 
Number AR20060013421 on 10 April 2007. Specifically, he requests his under other 
than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to either an under 
honorable conditions (general) discharge or an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record Under the Provisions 
of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552), dated 13 October 2017
*	Attorney’s Petition with 27 Exhibits as listed below:

*	Exhibit 1 – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Diagnostic Categories
*	Exhibit 2 – Case Management Division (CMD), Acknowledgement Letter 
for ABCMR Docket# AR20070007141, dated 23 May 2007
*	Exhibit 3 – Excerpt of military treatment records
*	Exhibit 4 – Special Orders Number 333, issued by Headquarters, U.S. 
Army Training Center Engineer and Fort Leonard Wood, Fort Leonard 
Wood, Missouri on 29 November 1973
*	Exhibit 5 – Applicant’s Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service, 
dated 24 October 1973
*	Exhibit 6 – Memorandum For: U.S. Army Absentee Returned to Military 
Control, dated 19 September 1973
*	Exhibit 7 – 1969 Newspaper Article "North Vietnamese Army (NVA) 
Onslaught Fails at Landing Zone (LZ)"
*	Exhibit 8 – Excerpt of military service records including: DD Form 214 
(Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), for 
the period ending period 30 November 1973
*	Exhibit 9 – Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision letter, 
dated 26 February 2015
*	Exhibit 10 – Clinical Record – Narrative Summary, dated 16 October 1973 
and Medical Board Proceedings, dated 19 October 1973
*	Exhibit 11 thru 13 – Behavioral Health Physician letters, dated 10 March 
2007, 24 March 2008, and 26 September 2006




*	Exhibit 14 – Central Minnesota Counseling Center, Inc. facsimile (fax) to 
the Minnesota VA – Claims Division, sent 10 April 2015
*	Exhibit 15 – Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Deserter Fugitive 
Status, letter dated 5 October 1973
*	Exhibit 16 – Separation Authority approval for Chapter 10, request for 
separation, dated 26 November 1973
*	Exhibit 17 – ABCMR Docket Number AR20070007141, administrative 
letter close due to the lack of new evidence, dated 2 October 2007
*	Exhibit 18 – National Center for PTSD, Understanding PTSD, and PTSD 
Treatment, Pamphlet from the www.ptsd.va.gov, website, dated 
September 2017
*	Exhibit 19 – Copy of Annex #1 LZ Jamie Operations Summary, 12 May 
1969
*	Exhibit 20 – Support letter from his daughter, for his appeal to the Board of 
Veterans Appeals, dated 6 March 2007
*	Exhibit 21 – Summary of Appeal to the Board of Veteran Appeals, dated 
16 September 2008
*	Exhibit 22 – ABCMR Docket Number AR20060013421, boarded on 
10 April 2007
*	Exhibit 23 – Applicant’s detailed recollection of the battle at, on 12 May 
1969
*	Exhibit 24 – Applicant’s self-authored letter to the Board of Veteran 
Appeals, dated 18 March 2007
*	Exhibit 25 – Applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record)
*	Exhibit 26 – Support letter from his wife, for his appeal to the Board of 
Veterans Appeals, dated 17 September 2008
*	Exhibit 27 – "Survivors of " Article from July – August 1989

*	Anoka County, Minnesota, Veteran Services letter to ARBA, with the applicant's 
DD Form 214; Compensation and Pension Examination (C&P) Report, dated 
29 June 2015; VA Rating Decision letter dated 17 July 2015; and C&P Award 
compensation printout, dated 17 July 2015

FACTS:

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 
AR20060013421 on 10 April 2007.

2.	As a new argument, the applicant’s states in effect, he doesn’t think he did anything 
wrong. While he was on leave, he went to his neighbor’s house and his hand got 
caught in a machine. He was hospitalized in the Center for two months and




did not have any contact with anyone. He has been diagnosed with PTSD and feels his 
discharge should be reconsidered because his absent without leave (AWOL) status 
reflects his PTSD. After years of fighting, he has his VA benefits and would like an 
upgrade.

3.	Counsel states in effect, the following:

   a.	[The applicant] proudly answered his country's call in 1968 by voluntarily joining 
and serving in the military. He is a Vietnam veteran who, because of his service, has 
lived each day with constant painful reminders of the events that occurred in Vietnam. 
As a result of the horrors he experienced, [the applicant] has struggled with a lifelong 
battle with PTSD stemming from his service. [The applicant] requests the Board 
consider this application as a new application, not an appeal based on the direct 
connection between his experiences in Vietnam, his behavior since, and his diagnosis 
of PTSD. In light of the new guidance provided by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel that 
"liberal consideration will be given in petitions for changes in characterization of service” 
for individuals with “what is now recognized as PTSD," this application should be treated 
as a new application for a discharge upgrade. [The applicant] has struggled immensely 
since his departure from LZ Jamie the day his unit was assaulted. Both Dr. M_ and Dr. 
J_ T_ have diagnosed [the applicant] with PTSD, depression, and anxiety attributed 
directly to his experiences at LZ Jamie. Additionally, the VA has recognized the 
connection between [the applicant’s] PTSD and his military service. Dr. T_ recently 
evaluated [the applicant] and described the numerous symptoms of PTSD that [the 
applicant] has struggled with for almost forty-seven years. Dr. T_ describes [the 
applicant’s] functioning as being in a state of "clinically significant distress or 
impairment." [The applicant] lived for years with his undiagnosed PTSD. Further, the 
stigma of living with an UOTHC discharge has not only blocked employment 
opportunities, but has also burdened [the applicant] with feelings of shame. As a result, 
for years [the applicant] been silent about his traumatic experiences. Undiagnosed, 
untreated, and stigmatized, [the applicant] has been left to struggle through his near 
constant battle with PTSD; under today's standards, [the applicant] would likely not have 
been left for forty-seven years to suffer alone in silence. He would have benefited from 
the current discharge procedures, which require an assessment into a military member's 
mental health prior to discharge. [The applicant] would have been assessed as having 
PTSD and provided with a medical discharge. Justice demands that a full assessment 
of [the applicant’s] new application be considered and granted.

b.	Counsel list the following as a Statement of Facts:

(1)	[The applicant’s] Enlistment and Service in Vietnam. [The applicant] was




born in 1950 and lived in Wisconsin. When he was 18 years old, he answered his 
country's call to service and voluntarily enlisted in the U.S. Army, on 15 October 1968, 
leaving his country just after finishing the tenth grade. He completed Basic Combat 
Training at Fort Campbell, Kentucky in December 1968 and completed Advanced 
Individualized Training as a Light Infantry Mortar man, in February 1969, at Fort Lewis, 
Washington. He deployed to Vietnam on 7 March 1969 and was assigned to Echo 
Company, 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment of the 1st Calvary Division. The
1st Cavalry Division's mission was to build landing zones and provide a forward 
operating base for infantry companies to work from on search and destroy missions.
[The applicant’s] primary duty was conducting reconnaissance missions. He developed 
a record of "excellence" in both training and combat throughout his enlistment and 
through the battle at LZ Jamie. On 12 May 1969, only three months after [the applicant] 
arrived in Vietnam, his unit was assaulted in a particularly horrific engagement. [The 
applicant] was with his unit in an area of Vietnam designated LZ Jamie. At about 0230, 
the NVA attacked LZ Jamie. When the attack began, [the applicant]'s bunker was soon 
surrounded by NVA. [The applicant] did not cower or hide from the fight. Instead, he 
and his fellow Soldiers engaged the enemy from their sandbagged position, determined 
not to lose the battle. For six-and-one-half hours, they fought off the NVA during the 
assault on LZ Jamie. During the attack, blood from his fellow Soldiers and enemy 
splattered [the applicant]. The emotional intensity wore on his psyche. [The applicant] 
has absorbed the terror of that night and continues to this day to be haunted by the 
trauma of being covered with blood. [The applicant] also remembers the horrific noise 
of the battle. During the attack, an NVA RPG round exploded just outside his bunker 
and deafened his right ear. After the assault on LZ Jamie subsided, [the applicant’s] 
psyche continued to be worn down. [The applicant]'s company Commanding Officer 
(CO) ordered him and his unit to carry the dead bodies and body parts from the attack 
to a large pit. Carrying out these grim duties made [the applicant] physically sick. [The 
applicant] also saw two of his fellow Soldiers, severely wounded and extracted from the 
listening post his unit maintained. After the battle [the applicant]'s CO ordered him to 
man the listening post. [The applicant] immediately informed his CO and the medical 
officer that he still could not hear out of his right ear due to the NVA RPG round 
explosion, and he further informed his CO that he was sick. [The applicant] told his CO 
several times that he was in no condition to man the listening post because of his 
hearing loss. [The applicant] requested the COs permission to see a doctor or take 
some time off on numerous occasions. Despite [the applicant]'s concerns for the safety 
of manning the listening post while ill and without the ability to hear, his CO reiterated 
the order to man the listening post and threatened court martial if [the applicant] did not 
follow the order. [The applicant] is unable to remember exactly what came over him 
when his CO threatened him with court martial. [The applicant] recognized that 
manning the listening post with his hearing loss would have put him and his fellow




Soldiers at risk. Overcome by the recent horrific battle, the threat of court martial, and 
fear for the safety of himself and his fellow soldiers, [the applicant] left LZ Jamie and 
went back to his company's base came in Bien Hoa on or about 12 May 1969. While in 
Bien Hoa, [the applicant] sought medical assistance. Medical reports confirm both his 
wounded eardrum and symptoms of PTSD. On May 16th, four days after the attack of 
LZ Jamie, [the applicant] was diagnosed with a small perforation in his right eardrum.
On July 22nd, the medic documented symptoms now understood to be indicative of 
PTSD when the medic reported that [the applicant] "mind wanders and feels that he 
needs help because of things that he has done," in reference to [the applicant’s] 
experiences at LZ Jamie. The report further explained that [the applicant] was unable to 
explain or understand his behavior. The medic noted [the applicant’s] "behavior may in 
part be due to experience in the field." However, the medics refused [the applicant’s] 
request to see a psychiatrist and claimed that he was intact.  On 25 August 1969, a 
clerk in Bien Hoa issued false emergency papers to [the applicant], at which time he 
went AWOL and traveled back to the United States. On 19 September 1973, [the 
applicant] was returned to the military's control. In September of 1973, [the applicant] 
was forced to choose between requesting a discharge for the good of the service or 
face court martial for being AWOL. On 24 October 1973, he requested a discharge for 
the good of the service.  Major General R.P. Young approved his request for a 
discharge for the good of the service on 26 November 1973.  On 30 November 1973, 
the applicant was discharged for the good of the service.  Depressed and struggling 
with PTSD, however, [the applicant] did not have the capacity to appreciate or 
understand the long-term consequences of requesting a discharge for the good of the 
service. It did not register, that an undesirable discharge would not only strip away his 
eligibility for medical benefits and financial support, but also leave him with the lifetime 
stigma of an undesirable discharge.

      (2)	[The applicant’s] Struggle since Vietnam. [The applicant] applied to the Army 
Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to have his discharge upgraded in October of 1978. 
However, there was no formal understanding of PTSD at the time of his request; PTSD 
did not enter the psychiatric Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) until 1980. As a 
result, on 14 November 1979, the ADRB denied [the applicant’s] October 1978 
application. [The applicant] returned from Vietnam a changed man. For many years he 
silently struggled with his untreated PTSD. His daughter, J_ R_, remembers growing up 
watching her father use alcohol to cope with the horrors he experienced in Vietnam. It 
was not until December 2006 that [the applicant] was finally able to speak with his 
daughter about his horrific experiences at LZ Jamie. Similarly, his wife, P_ S_, 
remembers the "terrible dreams [the applicant] would have" and has explained that he 
"revealed only in bits and pieces … of his time in Vietnam." [The applicant] suffered 
from his undiagnosed PTSD, all that time ashamed of his condition with no one to tum
      



to for help. [The applicant] applied to upgrade his discharge status in this time, but to 
no avail. On 7 September 2006, he applied to the ABCMR to have his discharge 
upgraded from an other-than-honorable discharge to an honorable or medical 
discharge. In his application, he contended that the reason he went AWOL was due to 
the trauma of the LZ Jamie attack that pushed his psyche to its breaking point.
Although [the applicant] had consulted a psychiatrist-Dr. M_ beginning in 1995, he 
continued to struggle with his experiences at LZ Jamie and did not share his experience 
with Dr. M_. As a result of the incomplete information, [the applicant] was initially 
diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. Without an accurate diagnosis of PTSD, the only 
evidence [the applicant] had to submit in support of his application to upgrade his 
discharge status were his military records.  Without PTSD in the DSM during his 
service, his military records lacked any record of his PTSD. As a result, the Corrections 
Board concluded that although there was sufficient basis to waive the three-year statute 
of limitations, it also concluded that [the applicant’s] request to be discharged for the 
good of the service made him ineligible for physical disability processing, and there was 
no basis to grant him a medical discharge.  Finally, in 2007, twelve years after 
beginning treatment with Dr. M_, [the applicant] began to share his experience at LZ 
Jamie with his psychiatrist. Dr. M_ immediately diagnosed [the applicant] with PTSD 
directly relating to the battle at LZ Jamie. Armed with this new diagnosis of his 
previously untreated PTSD, [the applicant applied to have the Correction Board's April 
2007 decision reconsidered in May 2007. However, on 2 October 2007, the Correction 
Board's staff returned his May 2007 application without action. Further, during [the 
applicant’s] service, his hand was severely injured when it was caught in a machine that 
removed and replaced automobile tires. This injury is incorrectly documented in [the 
applicant’s] record as a motorcycle accident. The injury required [the applicant] to 
undergo ten major surgeries in an attempt to reconstruct his hand. Unfortunately, his 
hand was unable to be saved. With only one hand and an undesirable discharge on his 
record, it was difficult for [the applicant] to secure gainful employment. Without an 
adequate income, he encountered great financial difficulty in addressing his medical 
care, including a surgery on his neck that was required after he lost feeling in his 
remaining hand. Without steady access to insurance and medical care because of his 
discharge status, [the applicant] has had to pay for his psychiatric and medical care out 
of his own pocket. This has placed a tremendous financial strain on his family. On
2 March 2015, [the applicant] was provided with some relief for his financial woes. The 
VA reviewed his case for benefits and connected [the applicant’s] PTSD, depression, 
and anxiety to his "active military service based on the events at LZ Jamie," and 
provided him with an overall disability rating of 90 percent (%) for PTSD and anatomical 
loss of his hand. The VA has waived his UOTHC discharge in order to provide him with 
these benefits.




      (3)	[The applicant’s] Recent Medical Diagnosis. On 1 April 2015, [the applicant] 
met with a licensed psychologist, J_ R. T_, Ph.D. L.P, in order to complete a full 
psychological examination regarding his diagnosis of PTSD. Specifically, Dr. T_ was 
asked to assess "whether the veteran's currently diagnosed PTSD caused him to act 
erratically and go AWOL from Vietnam and the Army" and to discuss "whether the 
social worker who [the applicant] saw on 22 July 1969 had the credentials to diagnose 
and finally to comment on a diagnosis of “personality disorder” assigned at the time." 
With Dr. T_’s "30 years of experience assessing and treating combat veterans ...
20 years of experience working at a VA Medical Center as a licensed psychologist," and 
his "experience as a combat veteran with the 2nd Infantry Division," Dr. T_ was able to 
provide his professional opinion. Dr. T_ stated that [the applicant] continues to meet all 
of the criteria for PTSD.  Dr. T_ noted that [the applicant] has "nightmares of the faces 
of the people he killed during his firefight on LZ Jamie at least a couple times a week or 
more often and he continues to have nearly daily distressing intrusive memories of his 
combat experiences." Dr. T_ also noted that [the applicant] displayed "avoidance," 
another symptom of PTSD, and stated that "[the applicant] clearly avoided talking about 
his experiences and thinking about his combat experiences throughout almost his entire 
adult life including years with his therapist who wasn't aware of his combat veteran 
status." Dr. T_ further reported that [the applicant] "continues to have irritable or angry 
outbursts, he is hyper vigilant, and he reports having an exaggerated startle response 
along with problems in concentration and a chronic sleep disturbance." Dr. T_ 
concluded by stating that [the applicant’s] "symptoms clearly cause clinically significant 
distress or impairment in his social, occupational, and family areas of functioning."
Dr. T_’s conclusions indicate that, since Vietnam, [the applicant] has been haunted by 
his experiences and has suffered a great deal from both his own internal struggles as 
well as his inability to reach out for help. In addition to PTSD, Dr. T_ observed 
symptoms of clinical depression and anxiety. He reported [the applicant] has difficultly 
almost daily with falling asleep and staying asleep as well as issues with concentration. 
Dr. T_ has noted that "[several days in a week [the applicant] has little interest or 
pleasure in doing things, he feels down, depressed or hopeless, he feels tired or having 
little energy, he has poor appetite, he feels bad about himself or like a failure, he feels 
fidgety or restless, and he has thoughts that he would be better off dead or of hurting 
himself in some way." Dr. T_ has described [the applicant’s] symptoms of anxiety; 
worrying; restlessness; fear that "something awful might happen;" nervousness; and 
irritability. Dr. T_ spent time both evaluating [the applicant] in person and reviewing his 
extensive records, including his discharge records, medical records, and other related 
sources. Based on his review, Dr. T_ stated "[the applicant] was experiencing acute 
PTSD after the firefight on LZ Jamie" and "[because of the threat of court martial] by his 
commanding officer ... [the applicant] knew that his life was in extreme danger due to 
his hearing loss and so instead he took it on his own to fly back to his main base camp




at Bien Hua to seek medical attention." Dr. T_ further noted that "[it is clear that [the 
applicant’s] acute PTSD caused him to act erratically and he continued to avoid going 
back to LZ Jamie." Dr. T_ also commented on whether the social worker who [the 
applicant] saw on 22 July 1969 had the credentials to diagnose and finally to comment 
on a diagnosis of "personality disorder" assigned at the time. Dr. T_ stated that the 
social worker was "certainly not qualified" when they reported that [the applicant] was 
"intact." Specifically, Dr. T_ noted that the social worker displayed no credentials and, 
further, would not have had a formal knowledge of PTSD even if they were credentialed. 
Additionally, Dr. T_ reported that "[the applicant] certainly did not meet the criteria for a 
diagnosis of a Personality Disorder at the time of his discharge although multiple 
symptoms of PTSD cross over with a personality disorder diagnosis." Dr. T observed 
that "hundreds if not thousands of Vietnam veterans were diagnosed with personality 
disorders when research and evidence clearly indicates that they should have been 
diagnosed with an Anxiety Disorder, depression or PTSD." Provided with the recent 
connection of [the applicant’s] PTSD to his service in Vietnam both by two qualified 
psychiatrists as well as the VA, [the applicant] submits this application, respectfully 
requesting that his undesirable discharge be corrected, a discharge that was granted 
without a full knowledge or understanding of his PTSD or how this disorder affected his 
decisions, behavior, and psychological condition at the time of his discharge. With the 
benefit of today's procedures for discharge, he would have been diagnosed with PTSD 
and provided a medical discharge from his service.

c.	In counsel’s closing arguments, he states the following;
     (1).	The Statute of Limitations should be waived because relief on the merits is 
appropriate and it is in the interest of justice to do so.

     (2).	[The applicant] presents new, material evidence not previously available that 
indicates a discharge upgrade is appropriate.

     (3).	[The applicant] has suffered the consequences of his UOTHC discharge for 
long enough.

     (4).	[The applicant's] UOTHC discharge is unjust because of the lack of 
understanding of PTSD at the time.

   d.	In counsel's conclusion he states, since his discharge, [the applicant] has lived for 
years suffering from PTSD and the stigma of his UOTHC discharge. Although previous 
Boards have reviewed [the applicant’s] application in the past, these previous 
applications were completed without the full understanding and acknowledgement of the 
link between [the applicant’s] behavior after the battle at LZ Jamie and the PTSD that he
   



has struggled with since. The previous Boards lacked the necessary information to 
evaluate the impact of PTSD on [the applicant]. As a result, he has lived for years with 
the stigma of his discharge, without help for his psychiatric trauma. The Board has the 
ability to review this new application in order to rectify the previous errors by granting a 
discharge upgrade; justice demands this result.

4.	The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 October 1968. After completing 
initial entry training, he was assigned overseas in Vietnam on 22 March 1969. His
DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he was assigned to Company D, 2nd 
Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division, from on or about 1 April 1969 
through on or about 14 April 1969. He was assigned to Company E, 2nd Battalion, 7th 
Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division, on or about 15 April 1969.

5.	The applicant was reported as AWOL, from on or about 25 June 1969 through on or 
about 9 July 1969, and from on or about 22 July 1969 through on or about
19 September 1973.

6.	Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant on 27 September 1973 
for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The relevant
DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) shows he was charged with being AWOL from on or 
about 25 June 1969 through on or about 9 July 1969, and from on or about 22 July 
1969 through on or about 19 September 1973.

7.	The applicant service records contains a Standard Form 502 (Clinical Record - 
Narrative Summary), dated 16 October 1973, stating the following:

HISTORY: Patient, while AWOL from the Army, was involved in a motorcycle 
accident on 15 May 1970, which resulted in traumatic amputation of his right hand.

PHYSICAL EXAMINATION: PE of the patient’s right upper extremity showed 
contracture of a remaining thumb inflexion position and no other digits. The patient 
had a flap over the ulnar aspect of the carpus with several painful areas probably 
representing neuromas. He had approximately 30° of dorsiflexion, plantar flexion 
and good supination and pronation. The remainder of the PE was unremarkable.
For gross evaluation, photographs of the right hand were obtained.

X-RAYS: X-rays of the right hand revealed amputation of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th 
metacarpals at the proximal aspect and amputation of the 5th finger at the MP joint.

CONSULTATION: EENT consultation was obtained because the patient gave a 
history of a hearing problem which he states was incurred in 1968 while in RVN. 
Consultation revealed a probable bilateral sensori-neural hearing loss, moderate on 
the right, and mild on the left, H-2 profile.





IMPRESSION: 1. Traumatic amputation of the right hand. 2. Probable bilateral 
sensori-neural hearing loss, moderate on the right and mild on the left.

RECOMMENDATIONS: UP AR 40-501, Chapter 3-12a, amputations of part or parts 
of the upper extremity equal or greater to the following indications, 1 thumb or 2 
fingers. Since this patient has lost all of the fingers and has a nonfunctional thumb, it 
is recommended that he be separated from the service as unfit. It is recommended 
that this board be presented to the PEB UP Chapter 4, AR 635-40 for final 
evaluation and disposition.

8.	The applicant service records also contains a DA 8-118 (Medical Board 
Proceedings), showing the following:

*	the patient is medically unfit for further military service in accordance with current 
medical fitness standards
*	traumatic amputation of the right hand. Line of Duty (LOD), NO 
Army Regulation 40-501, 3-12a
*	probable bilateral sensori-neural hearing loss, moderate on the right and mild on 
the left. LOD, Yes
*	the patient does not desire to continue on active duty under Army Regulation 
616-41
*	the board reached a unanimous decision and the approving authority approved 
the findings and recommendations on 5 November 1973

9.	The applicant consulted with legal counsel on 24 October 1973.

   a.	He was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the 
maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of 
an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and the procedures and rights that 
were available to him.

   b.	Subsequent to receiving legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested 
discharge under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – 
Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court- 
martial. In his request for discharge, he acknowledged his understanding that by 
requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge against him, or of a lesser 
included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable 
discharge. He further acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request was 
approved he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, he could be ineligible for 
many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, and he could be 
deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.
   



   c.	He was advised he could submit any statements he desired in his own behalf. 
He elected to submit a statement in his own behalf, however no statement is available 
for review.

10.	The applicant's immediate commander recommended approval of his discharge 
request on 4 November 1973, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, 
Chapter 10, and recommended he receive an undesirable discharge. Subsequently his 
intermediate commander also recommended approval [undated].

11.	The separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge on
26 November 1973, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, in 
lieu of trial by court-martial, and directed the he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade 
and be issued an undesirable discharge.

12.	The applicant was discharged on 30 November 1973, under the provisions of Army 
Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10. The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he was 
discharged in the lowest enlisted grade and his service was characterized as UOTHC.

13.	The applicant was charged due to the commission of an offense punishable under 
the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. Subsequent to being charged, he consulted with 
counsel and requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, 
Chapter 10. Such discharges are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by 
court-martial.

14.	The applicant applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his UOTHC discharge; 
however, the Board denied his request on 14 November 1979.

15.	The applicant applied to the ABCMR for an upgrade of his UOTHC discharge; 
however, the Board denied his request on 10 April 2007.

16.	Counsel provides a petition and 27 exhibits for consideration as listed above.

17.	The Board should consider the applicant's statement in accordance with the 
published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance.

18.	Based on the applicant's contention the Army Review Board Agency medical staff 
provided a medical review for the Board members. See "MEDICAL REVIEW" section.




MEDICAL REVIEW:

1.	The Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting 
documents and the applicant’s military service records. The Armed Forces Health 
Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) & Health Artifacts Image Management 
Solutions (HAIMS) was not in use at the time of his service.

2.	His military medical records indicate he was evaluated on 22 Jul 1969 after going 
absent without leave (AWOL) and refusing orders of superiors. Provider indicated he 
thought applicant had a personality disorder and referred him for a consultation. He was 
evaluated by a social worker. The social worker indicated his difficulties might be 
related to his experiences in the field. The social worker found he did not meet criteria 
for any psychiatric diagnosis and was cleared for any administrative action.

3.	He went AWOL that day until 19 Sept 1973 when he was apprehended by civilian 
authorities. On 16 Oct 1973, a medical evaluation board (MEB) found his hearing loss 
was line of duty, caused by service and the traumatic amputation of his right hand while 
AWOL was not line of duty. The MEB recommended referral to the physical evaluation 
board.

4.	A review of VA’s Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) indicates he was given a service 
connected disability rating of 70% for PTSD and 60% for amputation of right hand. His 
overall disability rating was increased from 70% from 2006 to 90% in 2014 and is 
currently 100%. His PTSD is due to service in Vietnam. The applicant did not meet 
retention standards at the time of his discharge due to amputation of his right hand. 
PTSD is a mitigating factor for the misconduct that led to his discharge.


BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.	After review of the application and all evidence, the Board determined that there is 
sufficient evidence to grant relief to upgrade the applicant’s discharge characterization 
to General, Under Honorable Conditions and amend the prior decision set forth in 
Docket Number AR20060013421 on 10 April 2007.

2.	The board applied Office of the Secretary of Defense standards of liberal
consideration and clemency to the complete evidentiary record, including the applicant’s 
statement and the Medical Advisory Opinion and found the applicant’s wartime service 
and PTSD partially mitigated the applicant’s misconduct. The Board found insufficient 
evidence to grant the applicant a full honorable discharge because the applicant 
deserted the Army for 4 years before returning to duty.




BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1
Mbr 2
Mbr 3

:X
:X
:X
GRANT FULL RELIEF
:
:
:
GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
:
:
:
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
:
:
:
DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to grant relief and amend the 
ABCMR's decision in Docket Number AR20060013421 on 10 April 2007. As a result, 
the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual 
concerned be corrected by amending his DD Form 214, dated 30 November 1973 to 
reflect his characterization of service as “General, Under Honorable Conditions.”



10/19/2020

 X Timothy W Keasling	
CHAIRPERSON
Signed by: KEASLING.TIMOTHY.WAYNE.1083013792

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.


REFERENCES:

1.	Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted 
personnel.

   a.	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.

   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.

   c.	Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has 
committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a 
punitive discharge may, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu 
of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have 
been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Although an 
honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable 
conditions is normally considered appropriate.

2.	As a result of 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 PTSD at 
the time of their discharge.  It is also acknowledged that in some cases this 
undiagnosed PTSD may have been a mitigating factor in the Soldier's misconduct that 
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.

3.	The Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) 
and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs), on
3 September 2014 [Hagel Memorandum], 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.

4.	The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provided clarifying 
guidance to Service DRBs and Service BCM/NRs on 25 August 2017 [Kurta 
Memorandum]. 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, traumatic 
brain injury (TBI), sexual assault, or sexual harassment. Standards for review should 
rightly consider the unique nature of these cases and afford each veteran a reasonable




opportunity for relief even if the sexual assault or sexual harassment was unreported, or 
the mental health condition was not diagnosed until years later. 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.

   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.

5.	The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to 
Military Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval 
Records (BCM/NRs) on 25 July 2018 [Wilkie Memorandum], regarding equity, injustice, 
or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted 
from a criminal sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the court-martial 
forum. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a 
court-martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in a discharge, 
which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds.

   a.	This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and 
principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority.  In 
determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency 
grounds, Boards shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn 
testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health 
conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was 
committed, and uniformity of punishment.

   b.	Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of 
service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not 
result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses
   



or similar benefits that might have been received if the original discharge had been for 
the revised reason or had the upgraded service characterization.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//