ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 April 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180002183 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * reconsideration of his previous requests for an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable * correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show his social security number (SSN) as XXX-XX- XXXX instead of XXX-XX-XXXX APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) * copy of his social security card * email message, dated 9 December 2011 * self-authored statement, dated 11 April 2011, addressed to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) * third-party statement, dated 12 April 2011, addressed to the VA * post-service medical records (9 pages) * memorandum issued by the Secretary of Defense, dated 3 September 2014, pertaining to discharge upgrade requests by veterans claiming post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) * memorandum issued the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, dated 24 February 2016, pertaining to discharge upgrade requests by veterans claiming PTSD or traumatic brain injury * memorandum issued by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, dated 25 August 2017, pertaining to consideration of requests by veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health, sexual assault, and sexual harassment FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's cases by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR20110003108 on 16 August 2011 and Docket Number AR20120014568 on 9 April 2013. 2. The applicant states: a. His discharge was inequitable because the conduct that resulted in his discharge was due to suffering from PTSD. While this matter was previously brought before the Board, a request for de novo review is hereby requested, as allowed for in the guidance memorandum provided by the Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. b. It is understandable that the Army, nor did the rest of the world, understood PTSD, its causes, and manifestations, during the time of his service and discharge. However, now that PTSD is better understood, and clarifying guidance has been issued to boards for correction of military/naval records for the purposes of upgrading discharges based on claims of previously unrecognized PTSD, he is submitting evidence that shows he had an experience during his service resulting in PTSD, and that this condition mitigates the behavior that resulted in his discharge. The evidence included in the attached documents, includes, but it is not limited to, facts and statements illustrating the triggering event and a supporting diagnosis of PTSD. c. He had an experience that resulted in severe mental distress. Soon after arriving in Vietnam, he lost his best friend who was killed in the line of duty in Vietnam. Not long after this, approximately two weeks after arriving in Vietnam, he received word that his only brother died unexpectedly and tragically in an automobile accident. His statement and a statement from his mother detail that his brother's death was a devastating and severely traumatic experience for him. These statements have been included in this application. Also, included are private medical records, which provide a diagnosis of probable history of acute PTSD, caused by this experience. d. He asks for liberal consideration of the proof offered. He was given the other than honorable discharge as a result of repeated absent without leave (AWOL) violations. After returning to the United States, he began drinking very heavily in an attempt to self-medicate for his now impaired mental state. At that time, no one knew the signs and symptoms of PTSD. Now, it is well documented that substance abuse and an inability to conform one's behavior to the expectations of a military environment may be evidence and indicative of an individual suffering from PTSD. In fact, the clarifying guidance referenced above specifically states that changes in behavior, the inability to conform to the expectations of the military, substance abuse, and evidence of misconduct can all be considered evidence of PTSD. Prior to the triggering event of his brother's death, there is no evidence of misconduct on his part. Directly after this event, his behavior changed. It was at this time that he drank heavily and continued to go AWOL. Both the substance abuse and the misconduct occurring soon after the traumatic and untimely death of this brother demonstrate symptoms of PTSD. As mentioned previously, private medical records have been included that support the likelihood that he suffered from PTSD during the time of his misconduct. e. The referenced clarifying guidance indicates that substance seeking behavior and efforts to self-medicate (symptoms of a mental health condition), may warrant consideration. As previously presented, he drank heavily to self-medicate for his PTSD condition. Again, he respectfully asks for liberal consideration in this matter. f. He is in very poor health, including conditions symptomatic of Agent Orange exposure, including type II diabetes, neuropathy in diabetes, and ischemic heart disease. In addition to these, he has a number of other chronic conditions including renal failure. Current medical records are attached that show his poor health. While this information is not provided as evidence to be used for upgrading his discharge, it is submitted to ask for an expedited review, as it is not clear how much longer he will survive, considering the severity of his health conditions. g. The SSN recorded during his military service was incorrect. 3. The applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 9 October 1968. His DD Form 47 (Record of Induction) shows his SSN as XXX-4X-XXXX, which is the SSN shown on his social security card. 4. The applicant' DA FORM 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he served in Vietnam from 6 April to 22 April 1969. 5. On 27 August 1969, he was found guilty by a summary court-martial of being AWOL during the period 8-18 August 1969. 6. The applicant's DA Form 20 shows he was AWOL from 29 October to 16 November 1969 and from 26 November 1969 to 26 May 1970. 7. On 9 June 1970, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for his AWOL offenses. 8. On 10 June 1970, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. 9. In doing so, he acknowledged that the charges preferred against him under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. He further acknowledged: * he had not been subjected to coercion with respect to his request for discharge * he had been advised of the implications that were attached to the discharge * he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA * he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits and he could be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws * he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of an undesirable discharge 10. On 18 June 1970, the separation authority approved the applicant's request and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. His DD Form 214 confirms he was discharged on 18 June 1970 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with his service characterized as under conditions other than honorable. 11. The applicant's DD Form 214 also shows his SSN was recorded as XXX-XX-XXXX instead of XXX-XX-XXXX, which is the SSN shown on his social security card and DD Form 47. 12. The applicant provided: a. An email message, dated 9 December 2011, which contains what appears to be an excerpt of a newspaper article pertaining to his brother's death, as a result of a motor vehicle accident, on 24 April 1969. b. A self-authored statement, dated 11 April 2011, stating, in effect, the misconduct that led to his discharge was as a result of mental health issues caused by his brother's death and because his then girlfriend was pregnant but her parents would not allowed them to get married. c. A third-party statement, dated 12 April 2011, provided by his mother, stating that the death of the applicant's brother was the main cause of his unfortunate choice of going AWOL. His mother also attest to the applicant's post-service conduct and accomplishments. d. Post-service medical records showing a diagnosis of adjustment disorder, unspecified and probable history of acute PTSD. 13. On 26 October 2017, the Army Review Boards Agency psychologist/medical advisor provided an advisory opinion. The advisory states that the applicant did not provide a diagnosis from a licensed behavioral health provider of PTSD. However, he claimed he was abusing alcohol at that time and was grieving as well. Based on what he has claimed, the probable diagnoses are alcohol abuse, bereavement, and perhaps adjustment disorder with disturbance of conduct. The advisory further states that a review of the available documentation found insufficient evidence of a medical disability or condition which would support a change to the character or reason for the discharge in this case. A copy of the complete medical advisory was provided to the Board for their review and consideration. 14. The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion on 20 April 2018 2017 and given an opportunity to submit comments. He responded and stated the following: a. The medical advisory opinion states that he did not provide a diagnosis from a licensed behavioral health provider. However, with his application, he included documentation from a licensed behavioral health provider that include the diagnoses of adjustment disorder, unspecified and probable history of acute PTSD. b. The advisory opinion states that no behavioral health conditions were present at the time of misconduct and provides probable diagnoses that do not include PTSD. However, as documented in his application, the clarifying guidance from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, dated 25 August 2017, specifically states that changes in behavior, the inability to conform to the expectations of the military, substance abuse and, evidence of misconduct can all be considered evidence of PTSD. As stated in the application, no evidence of substance abuse or misconduct occurred prior to the triggering event of his brother's death. c. Perhaps the clarifying guidance was written for the Review Boards in making their decisions and not for the medical advisory team, which may explain why the medical advisory opinion does not support the diagnosis of PTSD. However, he respectfully requests the Board give the liberal consideration suggested by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense and a make a decision in his favor to upgrade his discharge. BOARD DISCUSSION: After review of the application and all evidence, the Board determined there is sufficient evidence to grant partial relief. 1. The Board determined that the applicant’s SSN is incorrect on DD Form 214; DD Form 47 shows the correct SSN that matches the applicant’s social security card. 2. The board found that there is insufficient evidence to warrant full relief for the discharge upgrade. The Board considered the applicant’s contentions, supporting documentation regarding the events that led to the applicant’s PTSD, and the medical advisory, and found that there was evidence that PTSD may have mitigated the offenses which led to his separation from the Army. The Board also found that the applicant’s post-service rehabilitation mitigates the discharge the applicant received at the time of discharge and clemency is supported. Therefore, the Board found that a discharge upgrade to general under honorable conditions is warranted. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF :X :X :X GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. SSN: The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by deleting the current social security number (SSN) shown on his DD Form 214 and replacing it with the SSN shown on his social security card and DD Form 47. 2. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing the applicant a DD Form 214 showing his characterization of service as honorable and the narrative reason as secretary authority, with an appropriate separation code. 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. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): Not Applicable REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 10, in effect at the time, provided that a member who committed an offense or offenses under the UCMJ, for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge, could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after court-martial charges were preferred. Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service. Consulting counsel would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses, the type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of VA benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge. An Undesirable Discharge Certificate would normally be furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service. b. 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. c. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 2. On 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records 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 their service. 3. On 25 August 2017, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to service discharge review boards and service boards for correction of military/naval records 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. 4. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separations Documents), in effect during the applicant's active duty service, prescribed the separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army. It established standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214. It stated the DD Form 214 is a synopsis of the Soldier's most recent period of continuous active service. It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active Army service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180002183 7 1