ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 6 August 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180003027 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions to honorable * in the alternative, an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions to under honorable conditions (general) * correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show the narrative reason for separation as Secretarial Authority 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) * Agreement, The Veterans Consortium Pro Bono Program, dated 21 June 2017 * Applicant's Brief and Petition, undated * Exhibit 1 – DD Form 214, dated 21 July 1969 * Exhibit 2 – General Orders Number 10325, Headquarters, Americal Division, Award of the Air Medal with "V" Device, dated 8 August 1970 * Exhibit 3 – General Orders Number 12000, Headquarters, Americal Division, Award of the Army Commendation Medal, dated 6 September 1970 * Exhibit 4 – DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), dated 14 April 1969 * Exhibit 5 – Medical Opinion, Vista Psychological and Counseling Centre, dated 14 February 2017 * Exhibit 6 – Special Court-Martial Order Number 107, Headquarters, 11th Infantry Brigade, Americal Division, dated 16 November 1970 * Exhibit 7 – DA Form 2627, dated 4 May 1971 * Exhibit 8 – DA Form 2627, dated 26 June 1971 * Exhibit 9 – Summary Court-Martial Order Number 15, Headquarters, 1st Squadron, 14th Armored Cavalry Regiment, dated 13 July 1971 * Exhibit 10 – Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service dated 27 October through 10 November 1971, and accompanying documents * Exhibit 11 – Memorandum, Secretary of Defense, subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), dated 3 September 2014 * Exhibit 12 – Memorandum, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, subject: Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Requests by Veterans for Modification of their Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment, dated 25 August 2017 * Exhibit 13 – Character Letter, The Court of Common Pleas, dated 8 April 2015 * Exhibit 14 – Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 12 May through 1 June 1970 * Exhibit 15 – DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 14 September 1971, and accompanying documents * Letter, Change of Address, Applicant, dated 7 August 2019 REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. 3. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual and unit military awards. a. The Vietnam Service Medal was awarded to all service members of the Armed Forces of the United States for qualifying service in Vietnam after 3 July 1965 through 28 March 1973. Qualifying service included attachment to or assignment for 1 or more days with an organization participating in or directly supporting military operations. One bronze service star is authorized with the Vietnam Service Medal for each campaign during which a member was assigned or attached to and present for duty with a unit during the period in which it participated in combat. b. The Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960) was awarded by the Government of Vietnam to all members of the Armed Forces of the United States for qualifying service in Vietnam during the period 1 March 1961 through 28 March 1973. Qualifying service included assignment in Vietnam for 6 months or more. Qualifying service outside the geographical limits of the Republic of Vietnam required the individual to provide direct combat support to the Republic of Vietnam and Armed Forces. 4. Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) contained a register of unit citations and campaign participation credits for the Vietnam Conflict, the Grenada Operation, and the period of service subsequent to the Vietnam Conflict up to February 1986. It assisted commanders and personnel officers in determining or establishing the eligibility of individual members for campaign participation credit, assault landing credit, and unit citation badges awarded during the Vietnam Conflict, the Grenada Operation, and the period of service up to February 1986. This pamphlet shows: a. The 23d Infantry Division (Americal Division) was cited for award of the Meritorious Unit Commendation for the period 1 November 1968 through 30 June 1970 in Department of the Army General Orders Number 51, dated 1972. b. The 174th Aviation Company was cited twice for award of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation for the periods 24 August through 31 December 1969 and 31 March through 30 June 1970 in Department of the Army General Orders Number 42, dated 1972. 5. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time, set policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the force while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Soldiers for a variety of reasons. a. Paragraph 1-9d stated 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 1-9e stated 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 provided that a member who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a bad conduct or dishonorable 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 any time after charges had been preferred and must have included the individual's admission of guilt. An Undesirable Discharge Certificate would normally be furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service. If warranted, however, the discharge authority could direct an honorable or general discharge. 6. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), chapter 7, addresses trauma and stress or related disorders. The DSM is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and provides standard criteria and common language for classification of mental disorders. a. In 1980, the APA added PTSD to the third edition of its DSM nosologic classification scheme. Although controversial when first introduced, the PTSD diagnosis has filled an important gap in psychiatric theory and practice. From a historical perspective, the significant change ushered in by the PTSD concept was the stipulation that the etiological agent was outside the individual (i.e., a traumatic event) rather than an inherent individual weakness (i.e., a traumatic neurosis). The key to understanding the scientific basis and clinical expression of PTSD is the concept of "trauma." b. The fifth edition of the DSM was released in May 2013. This revision includes changes to the diagnostic criteria for PTSD and acute stress disorder. The PTSD diagnostic criteria were revised to take into account things that have been learned from scientific research and clinical experience. The revised diagnostic criteria for PTSD include a history of exposure to a traumatic event that meets specific stipulations and symptoms from each of four symptom clusters: intrusion, avoidance, negative alterations in cognitions and mood, and alterations in arousal and reactivity. The sixth criterion concerns duration of symptoms, the seventh criterion assesses functioning, and the eighth criterion clarifies symptoms as not attributable to a substance or co- occurring medical condition. 7. As a result of the extensive research conducted by the medical community and the relatively recent issuance of revised criteria regarding the causes, diagnosis, and treatment of PTSD, the Department of Defense acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharges. It is also acknowledged that in some cases this undiagnosed condition of PTSD may have been a mitigating factor in the Soldiers' misconduct which served as a catalyst for their discharge. Research has also shown that misconduct stemming from PTSD is typically based upon a spur of the moment decision resulting from a 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. 8. On 3 September 2014 in view of the foregoing information, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations, and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicants' service. 9. On 25 August 2017, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to DRBs and BCM/NRs when considering requests by veterans for modification of their discharges due in whole or in part to: mental health conditions, including PTSD, traumatic brain injury, sexual assault, or sexual harassment. Boards are to give liberal consideration to veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based, in whole or in part, on those conditions or experiences. The guidance further describes evidence sources and criteria and requires boards to consider the conditions or experiences presented in evidence as potential mitigation for misconduct that led to the discharge. 10. On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Service 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. 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. FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame as provided in Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b); however, the ABCMR conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant defers to counsel. 3. Counsel states the record is unjust because the applicant's misconduct that led to the discharge was due to his PTSD symptoms. a. The applicant was involved in a helicopter accident on 13 May 1970. A licensed psychologist diagnosed him with PTSD related to this event and his Vietnam service. After developing PTSD, the applicant engaged in misconduct commonly associated with avoidance symptoms and irritability of PTSD. Per the 2014 Secretary of Defense memorandum, this Board must consider PTSD as a mitigating factor in the discharge. Under the 2017 clarifying guidance issued by the Under Secretary of Defense, this Board has the authority to upgrade a discharge if a mental health condition sufficiently mitigates the misconduct. The applicant had PTSD in service as evidenced by his current diagnosis and medical professional opinion. The applicant's discharge is sufficiently mitigated because the misconduct is associated with his condition. In addition, the applicant's service was so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. b. The applicant suffered undiagnosed PTSD from his service in Vietnam. Had his service-related PTSD been recognized at the time of his discharge in November 1971, his PTSD would likely have excused or mitigated the misconduct leading to the less than honorable characterization. Moreover, he would likely have not received the same type of discharge if current screening procedures related to PTSD had been in place at the time of his discharge. c. Characterization of the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions has led the Department of Veterans Affairs to deny his medical treatment, compensation, and made him ineligible for other veterans' benefits that he would otherwise be due. Upgrading his discharge would correct this injustice and is particularly warranted here since his service was so meritorious that any other characterization would clearly be inappropriate. d. The applicant only recently learned of his clinically-defined PTSD when he received the diagnosis from his board-certified psychologist on 14 February 2017. Until the applicant received that diagnosis and consulted with counsel, he was not aware of his potential claim for a discharge upgrade based on the clarifying guidance from the Department of Defense directing that the Board should liberally grant reconsideration of applications decided without the benefit of all applicable supplemental guidance. e. To serve and defend his country, the applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army in October 1968. After receiving his required training, he deployed to Vietnam 7 months later in June 1969. He enjoyed considerable success in his Army career. He had consistently received high ratings in his evaluations from all the units in which he served and received many awards and commendations, including awards for heroism and valor in aerial combat. He was awarded the Air Medal with "V" Device for his part in rescuing the wounded crew from a downed helicopter. On 13 May 1970, the applicant was flying in a formation of approximately 30 helicopters when enemy fire brought down another helicopter. While still under hostile fire and return fire, his helicopter crew immediately flew to the crash site. Upon landing, they extracted the wounded crew while still engaging in machine gun fire. After loading the wounded aboard, the applicant administered vital first aid. The commendation he received with the medal states the applicant's "personal heroism, professional competence, and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, the Americal Division, and the United States Army." f. Three days later, on 16 May 1970, mechanical problems caused the applicant's helicopter to crash during another combat mission. Although he recalled nothing after his helicopter hit the ground, he later learned that another crew had extracted him unconscious from the wreckage and taken him to the hospital. There he received treatment for a back injury and convalesced. He was later readmitted to the hospital for acute alcohol intoxication and subsequently prescribed Valium. g. Up until this point in his career, the applicant had never had any major infractions. However, after the events in May 1970, his behavior changed. In November 1970, (when his psychologist notes that his PTSD symptoms emerged, including irritability), he was convicted by a special court-martial for failing to accompany a staff sergeant. Further disciplinary episodes occurred following his transfer to Germany in January 1971, after having served in Vietnam for over 17 months. h. In May 1971, he was convicted by a special court-martial for using disrespectful language toward a superior noncommissioned officer, to wit: "Hey Top! You sorry m____-f____," or words to that effect. The applicant tried to explain what had happened, writing: "You, Sir, as a combat soldier must realize the conditions and emotional pressures that a combat soldier goes through. The language I used in talking to Top [First Sergeant] V____, was the daily vocabulary that I heard and spoke while in Vietnam." In June 1971, he failed to go to his post on time. On 13 July 1971, he was convicted by a special court martial for using inappropriate language toward a chief warrant officer. The applicant also participated in an assembly and was told to return to his unit. Upon his refusal, he was referred to a special court-martial. i. In lieu of trial by court-martial, the applicant requested discharge under other than honorable conditions, which the Army granted. Due to the characterization of his discharge, he has been denied medical treatment and compensation for the past 46 years for his service-connected back injury sustained in the May 1970 helicopter crash and lung cancer from exposure to Agent Orange. j. On 14 February 2017, an Ohio board-certified psychologist diagnosed the applicant as suffering from PTSD as a result of the May 1970 helicopter crash and determined his symptoms started as early as November 1970. k. Since his discharge, the applicant completed the County Honor Court Program for Veterans. The judge stated he was a model participant and exceeded the work required of him in the program. He planted and maintained a garden for his entire neighborhood, earned support from volunteer veterans and his community, and received accolades from a local Vietnam Veterans of America chapter. l. The applicant respectfully requests removal of a material error or injustice from his military records by upgrading his discharge from under other than honorable conditions to honorable. In the alternative, he requests an upgrade of his discharge to general under honorable conditions with a narrative reason for separation of "Secretarial Authority." 4. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 October 1968. 5. On 14 April 1969, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for breaking restriction on or about 1540 hours, 13 April 1969, having been duly restricted to the limits of his unit at Fort Jackson, SC. His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $20.00 pay. He elected not to appeal. 6. His records show he was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 4th Battalion, 3d Infantry Regiment, 11th Brigade, Americal Division, in Vietnam with the principal duty of wireman effective 18 June 1969. 7. His records show he was reassigned to the 174th Aviation Company, 14th Combat Aviation Battalion, Americal Division, with the principal duty of gunner effective 13 May 1970. 8. His medical records, dated 16 May 1970, show he was involved in an aircraft accident. He received lacerations on his mid-to-low back. Portions of the handwritten notes by the medical care provider are not legible. a. The medical clearance, dated 16 May 1970, shows he was not granted medical clearance following an aircraft accident. He was grounded for 7 days. b. On 19 May 1970, the applicant reported he continues to have extreme back pain; still trouble bending and getting out of bed. Valium was prescribed. The medical care provider noted the sutures would be removed the following day. c. The medical clearance, dated 30 May 1970, shows he was granted medical clearance following an aircraft accident. The medical care provider noted his back strain and broken nose had healed. d. His medical records, dated 1 June 1970, show he reported pain while flying. Portions of the handwritten notes by the medical care provider are not legible. e. The medical clearance, dated 1 June 1970, shows he was not granted medical clearance following an aircraft accident. The reason listed is not legible. 9. His records show he was reassigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 4th Battalion, 3d Infantry Regiment, 11th Brigade, Americal Division, with the principal duty of wireman effective 19 July 1970. 10. Headquarters, Americal Division, General Orders Number 10325, dated 8 August 1970, awarded him the Air Medal with "V" Device for heroism while participating in aerial flight in the Republican of Vietnam. The applicant distinguished himself by valorous actions on 13 May 1970 while serving as a helicopter door gunner. On that date, he was flying in support of friendly ground troops engaged in heavy contact with a large enemy force. He unhesitatingly volunteered to assist in the extraction of wounded crew members. With complete disregard for his personal safety, he exposed himself to the hostile rounds while providing protective fire. Ignoring the danger involved, he remained in his vulnerable position while his comrades boarded the helicopter. Through his timely and courageous actions, he was instrumental to the swift and safe evacuation of his fellow Soldiers. 11. His records show he departed Vietnam on 17 November 1970. He participated in four campaigns during his service in Vietnam. 12. On 4 May 1971, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for using disrespectful language toward a superior noncommissioned officer on or about 1730 hours, 26 April 1971. At the same time, he was also disorderly in quarters. His punishment consisted of reduction in rank/grade from private first class/E-3 to private/E-2, forfeiture of $104.00 pay, extra duty for 2 hours per day for 45 days, and restriction for 45 days. He elected not to appeal. 13. On 25 June 1971, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, work call formation, on or about 0730 hours, 22 June 1971. His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $20.00 pay. He elected not to appeal. 14. Headquarters, 1st Squadron, 14th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Summary Court- Martial Order Number 15, dated 13 July 1971, shows he was found guilty of violating Article 91 (Disrespectful Language toward a Warrant Officer), UCMJ, for being disrespectful in language toward his superior warrant officer on or about 16 May 1971. His sentence consisted of reduction in rank/grade from private/E-2 to private/E-1 and extra duty for 2 hours per day for 30 days. 15. On 24 September 1971, court-martial charges were preferred against him for two violations of the UCMJ: violation of Article 92 (Violation to Obey a General Order or Regulation) by participating in an assembly, gathering, or meeting that was neither official in nature or sponsored by an officially recognized private association; and violation of Article 90 (Disobeying Superior Commissioned Officer) by willfully disobeying a lawful command on or about 23 September 1971. 16. On 27 October 1971, he consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He stated he did not desire further rehabilitation, had no desire to perform further military service, and acknowledged he understood: * if his request for discharge is accepted, he may be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate * he will be deprived of many or all Army benefits as a veteran as a result of the issuance of such a discharge * he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice civilian life as a result 17. On 2 November 1971, his immediate commander recommended approval and issuance of an undesirable discharge. He stated the applicant demonstrated a complete inability to adjust to military life. His record has been typified by recurrences of disrespect toward officers and noncommissioned officers, sloppy appearance, uncooperativeness, and a total lack of respect for military rules and regulations. Repeated counseling by his chain of command have had no effect on his behavior. 18. On 10 November 1971, consistent with the chain of command recommendations, the separation authority approved his request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial and directed issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 19. He was discharged on 18 November 1971. His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows in: * item 11a (Type of Transfer or Discharge) – Discharge * item 11c (Reason and Authority) – Army Regulation 635-200, SPN 246 * item 13a (Character of Service) – Under Conditions Other Than Honorable * item 13b (Type of Certificate Issued) – DD Form 258A (Undesirable Discharge Certificate) * item 22a(1) (Net Service This Period) – 2 years, 3 months, and 27 days * item 22a(2) (Other Service) – 8 months and 24 days * item 22a(3) (Total) – 3 years and 21 days * item 22c (Foreign and/or Sea Service) – 2 years, 2 months, and 4 days * item 24 (Decoration, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) – * National Defense Service Medal * Army Commendation Medal * Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960) * two overseas service bars * item 30 (Remarks) – Republic of Vietnam – 9 June 1969-17 November 1970 20. The letter from the Court of Common Pleas, dated 8 April 2015, states the applicant was entered in the County Honor Court Program for Veterans on 21 April 2014 and was on track to graduate on 18 May 2015. During that time, he has been the model participant for the Honor Court program. Not only does he complete, but he exceeds the work requirement. For example, he completed his community service in 3 months, whereas most participants take 6 to 12 months to complete. The applicant is respectful and genuinely kind to those with whom he contacts. Additionally, he planted and maintained a garden for his entire neighborhood simply because he enjoys gardening and giving to others. He has earned the unwavering support of the Honor Court team members, volunteer veteran mentors, and his community. He has even received accolades on his accomplishments in the program from the local Vietnam Veterans of America Chapter. 21. The medical opinion rendered by a psychologist board certified in counseling psychology, dated 14 February 2017, noted he interviewed the applicant on 16 January and 4 February 2017. From those two interviews and a review of the military records available to him, it is his professional opinion that the applicant suffers from PTSD subsequent to his combat experience on 13 May 1970 and that the disorder developed as early as November 1970. He was able to find no psychological or psychiatric screening records that would contradict this finding. Specifically, the applicant continues to experience intrusive and distressing memories and flashbacks of the events and continues to suffer from debilitating sleep disturbance for which he has sought help on many occasions. He exhibits a classic pattern of attempting to avoid reminders of his military service and other specific reminders of the traumatic event. The irritability that often accompanies PTSD has lessened over time with significant effort. Additionally, a strong sense of dissociation and alienation were present upon his redeployment to Germany, leading to a disenchantment with the military and behavioral infractions. 22. The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting documents and the applicant’s military records. His hardcopy medical records were reviewed. A review of VA’s Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) indicates he completed several Compensation and Pension Examinations in October and November 2015 for his back and pulmonary functioning and no service connected disability was identified. He does not have a service connected disability rating. A review of his civilian medical records indicates he was diagnosed with PTSD related to his Vietnam service. There is documentation to support a behavioral health condition at the time of his discharge. There is not documentation to suggest he did not meet retention standards at the time of his discharge. PTSD is a mitigating factor for the misconduct that led to his discharge. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board carefully considered the applicant's request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, a medical review, and published Department of Defense guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered counsel's statement, his record of service to include deployment and an award for valor, the frequency and nature of his misconduct, and the reason for his separation. The Board considered the applicant's PTSD claim and the review and conclusions of the ARBA Medical Advisor. 2. A majority of the Board agreed that there is sufficient evidence of mitigating factors to support a recommendation for partial relief in this case. The majority determined the applicant's record should be corrected to show he was discharged by reason of Secretarial authority and that his service was characterized as under honorable conditions (general). 3. The minority member found the available evidence sufficient to support a recommendation for full relief and determined the record should be corrected to show the applicant was discharged by reason of Secretarial authority and that his service was characterized as honorable. 4. The Board concurred with the corrections addressed in Administrative Note(s) below. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing his DD Form 214 to show his service was characterized as under honorable conditions (general), to show he was discharged by reason of Secretarial authority, and to include on his reissued DD Form 214 the awards addressed in Administrative Note(s) below. 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to correcting the record to show his service was fully honorable. 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): The applicant's DD Form 214 does not include the following authorized awards: * Air Medal with "V" Device * Vietnam Service Medal with four bronze service stars * Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960) * Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180003027 14 1