BOARD DATE: 14 July 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180002418 APPLICANT REQUESTS: through Counsel, reconsideration of his prior request for an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), dated 1 December 2017 * Power of Attorney, dated 11 April 2018 * Army Review Boards Agency letter, dated 23 August 2018 * DD Form 149, dated 16 November 2018 * Counsel’s letter, dated 16 November 2018 * list of exhibits 1 – 17 * Counsel’s brief * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) with the through date of 15 June 1971 * DD Form 4 (Enlistment Contract – Armed Forces of the United States), dated 16 June 1971 * DD Form 214, with the through date of 23 January 1975 * applicant’s self-authored statement * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Form 21-0960P-3 (Review Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Disability Benefits Questionnaire), dated 29 January 2017 * DA Form 2627-1 ( Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice ((UCMJ), dated 28 December 1971 * DD Form 4, dated 15 October 1970 * Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Record of Proceedings in Docket Number AR20130019359, dated 2 July 2014 * Headquarters, VII Corps Special Orders Number 116, dated 4 June 1971 * VA Form 21-0781 (Statement in Support of Claim for Service Connection for PTSD), undated * VA Form 21-526EZ, dated 13 December 2016 * Joint Alternate Service Board document * Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 23 January 1975 * Standard Form 93 (Report of Medical History), dated 23 January 1975 * ABCMR memorandum, dated 9 July 2014 * ABCMR letter, dated 9 July 2014 * Secretary of Defense memorandum, dated 3 September 2014 * Office of the Under Secretary of Defense memorandum, dated 25 August 2017 * Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense memorandum, dated 24 February 2016 FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR20130019359 on 2 July 2014. 2. Counsel states: a. The applicant is requesting a discharge upgrade to honorable or alternately general, under honorable conditions. He is a combat veteran who served in Vietnam and received several awards, including an Army Commendation Medal. After Vietnam, he suffered from severe PTSD symptoms, which has now been diagnosed by a licensed psychiatrist. After Vietnam, he had issues with misconduct, never arriving to his next duty station and being deemed AWOL. He subsequently received an under other than honorable conditions discharge. b. This Board should extend liberal consideration to the applicant, based on his PTSD symptoms being a major mitigating factor in his AWOL misconduct. Additionally, he was offered the opportunity to complete 12 months of community service for a discharge upgrade, which he did complete, but failed to have the paperwork properly submitted. In light of the applicant’s combat service in Vietnam and the mitigation of the misconduct duet to his PTSD symptoms, the applicant’s discharge characterization is an injustice and should be upgraded. His case before the ABCMR was put on hold until 24 November 2018 for the purposes of allowing the applicant to supply information regarding his PTSD diagnosis, which has now been supplied. c. Counsel’s brief recounts a narrative of the applicant’s service over numerous pages as very similarly detailed below in the applicant’s own self-authored statement, which will not be duplicated here. d. After his combat experiences, the applicant routinely struggled with anxiety, depression, anger, difficulty sleeping, nightmares, and suspiciousness. Until June 2017, a period extending for almost 46 years, the applicant suffered undiagnosed PTSD from the disturbing events he endured in Vietnam. Before experiencing combat, he had never received any discipline for insubordination. It was only after several months in Vietnam that he began to display symptoms of PTSD. Specifically, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for using disrespectful language toward his superior noncommissioned officer (NCO) on 24 December 1971, the same day the North Vietnamese Army launched approximately 12 mortar and rocket attacks on the applicant’s unit at Camp Smith as they celebrated Christmas. In March 1972, following his return from Vietnam and a 30-day leave, he failed to report to his unit and was reported AWOL. e. Although unrecognized at the time, the applicant’s PTSD affected his behavior, which ultimately led to his under other than honorable conditions discharge. As a result, over the past 46 years, he has not received the health care benefits and compensation he both earned and deserves. Per the 2014 Hagel Memorandum and the 2017 Clarifying Guidance, the applicant respectfully requests the ABCMR to grant liberal consideration that the behavior underlying the discharge was a direct result of PTSD symptoms and experiences he suffered in service. His discharge did not consider his mental health condition and traumatic experiences. As a matter of equity, his discharge warrants an upgrade to general, under honorable conditions. f. Struggling to cope with his harrowing experiences in Vietnam, the applicant tried to numb his pain with alcohol for the next 30 years and rapidly became an alcoholic. After his 30-day leave, he was due to report to Fort Sill, OK, but was never sober enough to report for duty. He was AWOL from 17 March 1972 through 22 January 1975 and was consequently considered a deserter. Upon his return to military control in 1975, he had the opportunity to request discharge for the good of the service with the understanding he would receive and undesirable discharge. g. In connection with a medical examination prior to his 1975 discharge, Dr. J____ G____ noted the applicant had occasional palpitations, lost 29 pounds in Vietnam which he never gained back, and had difficulty sleeping. On 23 January 1975, he received an undesirable discharge, under other than honorable conditions. In exchange for his discharge, the applicant agreed to complete 12 months of alternative service and upon successful completion of such service, he would receive a clemency discharge. The applicant has stated he completed the program and the attorney with whom he worked did not send in the appropriate paperwork, thus he was not credited with completion. h. On 9 July 2014, the ABCMR denied the applicant’s first application requesting discharge upgrade; however, his records at that time did not account for his service- connected mental health condition. From 2014 – 2017, the applicant met with a board- certified psychiatrist, Dr. M____ H____ and his staff in Columbia, KY for counseling over a dozen times and they asked him questions about his service in Vietnam. On 29 June 2017, following his review of the applicant’s records, Dr. H____ diagnosed the applicant with suffering from PTSD and a mood disorder tied to the traumatic events he experienced in Vietnam. Dr. H____’s report states that rockets were launched into the applicant’s camp on a regular base, including the 24 December 1971 mortar and rocket attack on his camp and that the applicant saw multiple fatalities, both civilian and military caused by bombs, rockets, and gunfire. Dr. H____ cited the applicant’s symptoms of PTSD within his report, including depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, chronic sleep impairment, flattened affect, difficulty adapting to stressful circumstances, and intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living, including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene. i. The applicant’s discharge was inequitable because his mental health condition was a major contributing factor in the misconduct that led to his discharge and should therefore be viewed as a mitigating factor. The ABCMR may upgrade a discharge to correct an error or an injustice. In this case, equity requires the upgrade of the applicant’s other than honorable conditions discharge. Had the Army recognized his service-related PTSD prior to his discharge in January 1975, his PTSD would both likely have excused or mitigated the misconduct leading to his less than honorable characterization of service and he would have received the treatment so desperately required. j. The Hagel memorandum and subsequent Carson memorandum instruct the ABCMR to consider whether PTSD or other mental health conditions were mitigating factors in the misconduct that led to a veteran’s discharge. A subsequent clarifying memorandum from 25 August 2017, was issued to the ABCMR and other military discharge review boards requiring them to review discharge upgrades in whole or in part on mental health conditions that occurred during military service, mitigate the misconduct, or outweighs the characterization of the discharge. The Board will give liberal consideration to veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions. k. Absent clear evidence to the contrary, a diagnosis rendered by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist is evidence the veteran had a condition that may excuse or mitigate the discharge. In this case, Dr. M____ H____, a board-certified psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant as suffering from PTSD and a mood disorder subsequent to the traumatic events he experienced in Vietnam and there is no evidence contradicting his PTSD diagnosis. The doctor also believes this condition existed at the time of the applicant’s service based on the available evidence, to include weight loss, chronic sleep impairment, and inability to conform to the expectations of the military environment after his experiences in Vietnam. l. Although in some cases the severity of the misconduct may outweigh any mitigation from the mental health conditions, in this case, the applicant’s mental health condition significantly outweighs the misconduct. Equity requires the upgrade of his discharge because he would likely not have received the same negative portrayal in his discharge if current mandatory screening procedures related to PTSD had been in place at the time of his discharge. The applicant’s record demonstrates the absence of mental health safeguards during the time of his service and discharge. Critically, PTSD was not a recognized diagnosis until 1980. Had it existed at the time, there is a strong possibility the applicant would have received both a diagnosis and treatment as today’s Soldiers do under these conditions. m. Had these safeguards been in place at the time of the applicant’s discharge, he would have received the heightened screening to examine whether his PTSD caused the misconduct underlying his discharge and to decide whether the characterization of his service was appropriate. The unavailability of these mental health safeguards deprived him of the now-required consideration of any causal relationship of possible PTSD symptoms and the basis of the discharge. This deprivation constitutes an injustice that requires the upgrading of is discharge to general, under honorable conditions, as a matter of equity. n. The applicant’s service meets the requirements of a general discharge. A general discharge is warranted when the Soldier’s military record is satisfactory, but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. Following 8 months of active service in the Army, he was honorably discharged in June 1971 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment, then served his country for over 6 months in Vietnam under hostile fire conditions. During his Army career, he received many awards and decorations, including the following: * Army Commendation Medal * National Defense Service Medal * Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16) * Vietnam Service Medal * Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with 1960 Device * Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation o. Considering the foregoing, the ABCMR should take the applicant’s positive service record and accolades into account, view his PTSD as a mitigating factor, and recognize his service warrants a discharge upgrade. 3. The applicant states: a. He was born on 19 September 1951 in North Carolina and raised in Kentucky. On 15 October 1970, he enlisted in the Army due to his neighbor being killed by a sniper in Vietnam. He wanted to help his country and their county (which was the smallest in Tennessee with a population of about 2,800) had lost 7 men in Vietnam. b. In 1971 he went to boot camp at Fort Campbell, KY and qualified expert with the M-16 rifle,10th in the company. Afterward he want to Advanced Individual Training (AIT) at Fort Leonard Wood, MO and was awarded a combat engineer military occupational specialty (MOS) 62E (Engineer Heavy Equipment Operator) and attained the rank/grade of private first class/E-3. c. His first overseas service was to Bamberg, Germany. As he was a heavy equipment dozer operator and there were no dozers there, he was assigned to a bridge building unit. In Bamberg, there were lots of drugs and racial tensions. He feared for his life there. Every weekend he witnessed blacks attacking whites. It was so bad that their first sergeant told them not to go out at night by themselves and they should go out in groups of three or more. He saw blood on the cobblestones where a white Soldier was thrown from a fifth floor in a wall locker. He was killed by other American Soldiers. He also was attacked by three black Soldiers just outside the barracks and they attempted to get his wallet and watch. His hands were cut pretty badly from broken glass and he saw an Army physician after the attack. That’s why he volunteered to go to Vietnam. He though if he was going to get killed that it might as well be in Vietnam from then enemy than by an American GI. He was only in Bamberg for 2 weeks and witnessed all of this. d. On 15 June 1971, he was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment for service in Vietnam. At the time of his reenlistment, he returned home then left for Vietnam. On or about 13 August 1971, he arrived in Vietnam and was assigned to the 554th Delta Company Combat Engineers and served primarily as a truck driver. The company was located at Camp Smith in the Central Highlands at Bao Loc. e. With three other engineer companies, Delta Company was responsible for transporting construction material for the building of highways in the Central Highlands, primarily on Highway 1. For over 6 months, he participated in over 100 armed supply convoys of about 30 trucks each from Fort Smith to Long Binh and various other remote areas. The convoys took about 10 to 12 hours and for security reasons, they always traveled during daylight hours. f. His deployment to Vietnam wasn’t any better than Germany. He was just a naïve country boy. The first thing he experienced was when his convoy left from Camp Smith going 10 kilometers south and they came upon and ambush of a commuter bus which had been attacked by the Vietnamese. There were about 20 to 40 people killed on the bus that had been hit by rocket propelled grenades (RPGs). To this day, this is something that still haunts him. He can still see, smell, and taste the burning flesh. He will never get that scent out of his head of women and children smoldering. Whenever he smells diesel fuel, he automatically remembers that scene. g. They came under heavy attack with sniper fire and rockets at Fort Smith on Christmas night, 24 December 1971. It was pure chaos and he was terrified thinking he was going to die. He remembers the attack well. He just couldn’t cope with Vietnam, as there was death everywhere. Seeing dead children is something he can’t get over. The uncertainty of what was going to happen next and the panic that welled up inside when he heard rockets and RPGs, surely caused his panic attacks. On 14 February 1972 he left Vietnam for the United States after completion of his tour of duty. For his service in Vietnam he was awarded the following: * National Defense Service Medal * Vietnam Service Medal * Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal * Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with 1960 Device * Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation * one overseas service bar * Army Commendation Medal h. He was to go home for 30 days of leave after being in Vietnam for over 6 months. He was so messed up after getting home. He was so glad when his plane landed in Seattle, WA, then had to take a connecting flight to Nashville. When he arrived in Seattle, he had his uniform on and there were war protesters on both sides of the gate. They spat at him and called him a baby killer. He was so glad he was home that he could have kissed the ground and here he was getting spit at. He was devastated at that and at other similar events. The first thing he did was go to the airport bar and start drinking. He drank for the next 30 years, always trying to forget and to cope. He was to report to Fort Sill, OK, but never did. He was never sober enough. He stayed completely drunk and was treated like a piece of crap by people with no celebration, just pure animosity. By this point, he felt angry about anything to do with Vietnam. He never thought that friends and family would treat him like he was a traitor for going to Vietnam. i. Upon his return home to Spencer, TN, he had both mental and physical issues caused by his combat experiences in Vietnam. He began experiencing flashbacks of combat and associated human casualties. Specifically, he became an alcoholic, could not sleep, and lost weight. He drank to numb his feelings. He had a feeling of doom, his ears would constantly ring, and he had a problem with crowds. He could not attend any public functions such as church, sporting events, shopping malls, anywhere there were crowds of people. j. At this time, he essentially dropped out from society and climbed into a bottle. He had no interest in any social activities and events. He wanted to be left alone and was not functional. Initially, he lived with his parents and married his girlfriend. Due to his drinking, the marriage only lasted 8 years. On several occasions while living in McMinnville, TN, he would fill out job applications and when the employers learned he was a Vietnam veteran, they would tell him they weren’t hiring. One guy ripped up his employment application right in front of his eyes. He felt like he should have stayed in Vietnam and died, so at least his parents could have felt respect from people because he had died. k. In 1974, he received information about a Vietnam Veterans Clemency Program involving alternative volunteer public service to receive a clemency discharge. Therefore, on 22 January 1975, he applied to this program. He accepted a janitor’s job at the Manchester, TN, prosecutor’s office which was about 40 miles from his home. The job required him to report every day at 8:00 A.M. for an 8-hour work day. Although there was no work to do, he reported every day for about 4 months. At the prosecutor’s office, his supervisor hated him. Also, as there was no work, he agreed that he could stop reporting and the supervisor would sign his papers. Later on, he found out that the supervisor did not sign his papers. He contacted his office about the submission of the paperwork, but he has since died. He thought his discharge should be automatically upgraded due to his community service, but found out about 6 years ago it wasn’t. l. He married his current wife in 2001. They lived together in Michigan from 1986 to 2002 then moved to Burnside, KY. They have two children and two grandchildren. Their marriage survived his drinking, as he stopped drinking in 2001. After attending vocational school, he was employed as a commercial brick layer for commercial and residential construction projects from 1977 to 2009. He was a member of the Brick Layer’s Union Local Number 1 in Detroit, MI, from 1996 to 2001. He continued to work as a brick layer in Kentucky from 2002 to 2014. He is now retired and living in Burnside, KY, off his Social Security payments. m. As he continued to have mental health issues, including severe depression and anxiety attacks, he sought the help of a psychiatrist at the suggestion of a Vietnam veterans representative in Manchester, TN. He had previously sought VA assistance in KY, but the VA did not provide him any assistance. He met with a psychiatrist, Dr. M____ H____ and his staff for counseling from 2014 to 2017 in Columbia, KY, which was not especially helpful. He met with them over a dozen times. n. They asked him questions about his service in Vietnam and on 29 June 2017, his treating psychiatrist, Dr. M____ H____ issued him a PTSD questionnaire report which confirmed that he suffered from PTSD due to his service in Vietnam. His daughter then sent the report to the VA. Based on the PTSD diagnosis in the report and for reasons listed in his statement, he is requesting a discharge upgrade to general, under honorable conditions. In his current state, he is seeking a discharge upgrade which would recognize his Vietnam service, which is a major issue for him. The discharge upgrade would also allow him to obtain a VA card and gain access to veterans’ benefits and insurance, which is very important to him. 4. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years on 15 October 1970 and was awarded the MOS 62E. After serving in Germany, he was honorably discharged on 15 June 1971 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment after 8 months and 1 day of net active service. His DD Form 214 from this period of service shows he was awarded or authorized the National Defense Service Medal and the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16). 5. He again enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years on 16 June 1971, for the Overseas Area Enlistment Option and further assignment to Vietnam. 6. The applicant served in Vietnam from 13 August 1971 through 14 February 1972. A DA Form 2627-1 shows that while in Vietnam the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ on 28 December 1971, for being disrespectful in language to his superior NCO on 24 December 1971. 7. The complete facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not in his available records for review. He appears to have been reported AWOL on 17 March 1972 and returned to military control on 22 January 1975 after having been dropped from the rolls. 8. An undated Option Form signed by the applicant, shows he indicated he was advised by legal Counsel about the President’s Clemency program and based on this information he desired to sign an Affirmation of Allegiance, a Pledge of Public Service, and accepted an Undesirable Discharge. 9. An Election of Military Rights, dated 23 January 1975, shows the applicant had the opportunity to inspect his records for any irregularities, inconsistencies, or information that may be beneficial to his case or may act as either a defense or in mitigation to any administrative or judicial actions which may be pursued, and after having been advised by Counsel, indicated he did not desire that his military records to be checked. 10. A Statement to the Board for Alternate Services shows the applicant submitted matters to the Alternate Service Board for their consideration in determining the number of months of alternate service he must perform. He indicated he voluntarily submitted this statement with full knowledge and understanding that he was not obligated to make this statement or complete any part of this form. He left the reason for being AWOL from military service plank as well as the section pertaining to him employment during his period of AWOL. He wrote he was in Vietnam from 1971 – 1972 and did not want to make a statement. 11. A Joint Alternative Service Board Agreement shows the Joint Alternative Service Board, established by Presidential Proclamation Number 4313, reviewed the applicant’s official records and by a majority vote determined he would be required to serve 12 months of alternative service. They had taken into consideration that he completed 6 months of service under hostile fire conditions, but was also AWOL from 17 March 1972 through 22 January 1975 and declared a deserter. 12. A Standard Form 88, dated 23 January 1975, shows: a. The applicant underwent medical examination on the date of the form after his return to military control as part of the Presidential Clemency Program. b. The clinical evaluation did not discover any abnormalities beyond tattoos and the applicant indicated he was in good health and not taking any medication. c. He was given a physical profile rating of “1” in all categories and deemed qualified for release from active duty. 13. A Standard Form 93, likewise dated 23 January 1975, shows: a. The applicant indicated on the form he had from the following: * sinusitis * hay fever * shortness of breath * palpitation or pounding heart * recent gain or loss of weight * frequent trouble sleeping b. The medical examiner wrote in the physician’s summary on the form that the applicant had intermittent sinusitis and hay fever. He was short-winded and smoked 1 1/2 packs of cigarettes daily. He had occasional palpitations and lost 29 pounds while in Vietnam which he never gained back. He also had difficulty sleeping. 14. A U.S. Army Administration Center memorandum, dated 23 January 1975, informed the applicant of the Department of the Army policy to provide separating individuals with a separate document indicating the narrative reason for separation, narrative description of the regulatory of statutory authority for separation, and the Reenlistment code, if desired. The applicant declined a separate document. 15. His records contain an undated letter of support from the Director of Van Buren County Civil Defense, stating the applicant was an outstanding member of the Civil Defense in rescue work and in the Civil Defense Fire Department since June 1973. 16. His DD Form 214, covering the period 16 June 1971 through 23 January 1975, shows: a. The applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 23 January 1975 for the good of the service by reason of willful and persistent unauthorized absence pursuant to Presidential Proclamation Number 4313. b. He agreed to serve 12 months of alternative service pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 4313. c. He was credited with completing 9 months and 8 days of net active service this period, with 819 days of lost time prior to his normal expiration term of service. d. He was awarded or authorized the following: * National Defense Service Medal * Vietnam Service Medal * Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with 1960 Device * Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation * one overseas service bar * Army Commendation Medal 17. A letter from the Reconciliation Service Division Manager, Selective Service System, dated 20 June 1976, shows: a. The Director terminated the applicant from enrollment in the Reconciliation Service program as he did not complete his required period of alternate service. After he was processed by the Joint Clemency Processing Center, he had enrolled in the Reconciliation Service Program, the requirements of which were explained to the applicant and efforts were made to provide him with an opportunity to satisfactorily complete his alternate service. b. The decision to terminate the applicant from active enrollment in the program was based on the following information. He had commenced work on two approved jobs, but was dismissed from the first for unsatisfactory performance and left the second without authorization. 18. The applicant applied to the ABCMR requesting an upgrade of his discharge and on 2 July 2014, the Board denied the applicant’s request, having determined the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. 19. The applicant provided an undated VA Form 21-0781 and a VA Form 21-5, dated 13 December 2016, which show: a. He provided his checking account information, address, and his other pertinent personal contact information regarding a VA claim for PTSD compensation. b. With regard to PTSD, the applicant described an incident from on or about 28 August 1971 in Vietnam, when their convoy arrived upon the scene of an ambush of a commuter bus by suspected North Vietnamese approximately 10 kilometers from Camp Smith. Approximately 20 – 40 people were killed as the bus had been hit by RPGs. This was his first sight of the burning flesh of another human, which is something that has stayed with him all these years. The smell still haunts him. 20. The applicant provided a VA form 21-0960P-3 completed by Dr. M____ H____ and dated 29 June 2017, which shows: a. The applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and mood disorder, not otherwise specified as well as hypertension, Hepatitis C. His psychosocial and environmental problems were listed as financial stressors and lack of primary support system. It was not possible to differentiate what symptoms were attributable to which diagnosis because his depressive and anxiety symptoms were often inter-related. b. All of his symptoms related to PTSD diagnosis created an ongoing functional impairment in the areas of occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, and/or mood. c. The applicant was in the Vietnam war from 1971 – 1972 and had multiple combat experiences during his deployment. He was in several firefights/engagements with the enemy. He saw multiple casualties and fatalities, both civilian and military, caused by bombs, rockets, and gunfire. 21. The Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting documents and the applicant’s medical records in the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) and Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) and made the following findings and recommendations: a. While the applicant’s submitted C&P is not in the VA files, which they should be in one form or another given it was conducted in 2017, the diagnosis and authenticity was accepted. Given liberal consideration guidance, PTSD would mitigate AWOL. Accordingly, an upgrade is recommended. b. Due to the period of service, active duty medical records are void. Hard copy active duty medical records were unavailable to this provider outside of his exit physical. c. The applicant is not service connected. The only VA contact in the records was to clarify he was ineligible for care in December 2013. There is no Compensation and Pension (C&P) examination either the appointment or reference to uploading an outside exam. d. The applicant submitted a 2017 C&P diagnosing PTSD and Mood Disorder NOS; however the evaluation or notation of a report is not in the VA records; 2017 records should be present in the VA files. The C&P is difficult to read and illegible in some areas. It references prior community mental health records which the applicant did not provide. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting evidence, including the applicant’s statement and VA PTSD documentation, the Board found sufficient evidence to grant relief. The Board found the preponderance of evidence indicates that the applicant’s PTSD was a mitigating factor for the misconduct that resulted in his discharge characterization. Therefore, the Board found sufficient evidence to change the applicant’s discharge characterization to General, Under Honorable Conditions. 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 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 amending the applicant’s discharge characterization on his DD Form 214, ending 23 January 1975, to “General, Under Honorable Conditions.” 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. 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. 2. On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) 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. This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide BCM/NRs in application of their equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, BCM/NRs 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. 3. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 10 provides that a member who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized sentence included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request could be submitted at any time after charges were preferred. Although an honorable or general discharge could be directed, an Undesirable Discharge Certificate would normally be furnished to 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 a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. d. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is an administrative separation from the service under conditions other than honorable. It may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial. When a Soldier is discharged UOTHC, the separation authority will direct an immediate reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. 4. Presidential Proclamation 4313, issued on 16 September 1974, provided for the issuance of a clemency discharge to certain former Soldiers who voluntarily entered into and completed an alternate public work program specifically designated for former Soldiers who received a less than honorable discharge for AWOL-related incidents between August 1964 and March 1973. a. Under this proclamation, eligible deserters were given the opportunity to request discharge for the good of the service with the understanding they would receive an undesirable discharge. Upon successful completion of the specified alternative service, the deserter was issued a clemency discharge. b. The clemency discharge did not affect the individual’s underlying discharge and did not entitle him to any Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits. Rather, it restored Federal and in most instances, State civil rights which may have been denied due to the less than honorable discharge. If a participant of the program failed to complete the period of alternative service, the original undesirable characterization of service would be retained. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180002418 14 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1