IN THE CASE OF:  

BOARD DATE:  27 April 2022

DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20210016594


APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his request to upgrade his under other 
than honorable conditions characterization of service.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	Behavioral Health Documentation

FACTS:

1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the 
previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of 
Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number A64.00 on 25 January 1984.

2. The applicant states, in effect, he is requesting that his under other than honorable 
conditions discharge be changed to an honorable discharge. He experienced traumatic 
events, prior to the military for which he has been under psychological treatment for 
over 10 years up to the present time. His military service triggered his traumatic 
experiences, which led him to become a deserter. He had time to reflect on the error, 
which he made, while in the military and since his discharge has led an exemplary life 
which entailed obtaining a Ph D. and teaching for many years as a university professor. 
He was considered a deserter due to the fact that he had a trigger in the military that 
caused him to become a deserter in the military. 

3. The applicant provides a letter from which states in effect:

	a. He is a licensed psychologist with clinical specialization who provides 
psychotherapy for the applicant. The applicant had participated in 120 sessions with him 
since 3 November 2016. 

	b. Prior to that, the applicant saw a licensed clinical psychologist in on a weekly 
basis for approximately six years. In addition, elsewhere in he had seen various mental 
health professionals.

	c. In therapy with the author, the applicant has slowly but steadily progressed in 
addressing issues of chronic stress as well as obsessive compulsive thoughts and 
behaviors. The purpose of the letter was first of all to provide a retrospective account of 
the relationship between his chronic posttraumatic stress caused by a series of 
experiences prior to his service in the US Army on the one hand and his tendencies 
toward obsessive thought and compulsive behavior on the other. The author would then 
show how those unresolved struggles impacted his military career. The letter also 
provides evidence for and appeal to the ABCMR to provide the applicant with either an 
honorable discharge or at the very least an under honorable conditions (general) 
discharge given his long standing and historically unsuccessful struggles to control 
anxiety, a condition which still largely controls him. 

	d. As an example of how the applicant struggled with managing his anxiety 
throughout his military service, he told the author that during his basic training at Fort 
Ord, he was administered a language aptitude test and received a score of 46. As a 
consequence, he was visited in his barracks a few days later by a second lieutenant 
who offered him the opportunity to study Chinese at the Defense Language Institute 
Foreign Language Center in nearby. The officer told the applicant that after a year at the 
Institute, he would be sent to University for an additional six months in order to complete 
his language training.

	e. The applicant stated he recognized this opportunity as being truly exceptional and 
one that could significantly enhance his career opportunities once he was discharged; 
however, when he asked the officer if he would have a roommate at the Institute and 
was told that he probably would have one, the applicant felt compelled to turn down the 
offer because of his searing experience of being bullied at College that continue to 
plague him today. 

	f. The applicant explained that on a near daily basis in the fall of 1956, he was 
repeatedly harassed by a roommate who was on a basketball scholarship. This 
roommate was described to originate from city and had strong religious and political 
differences with the applicant, which culminated in recurring physical attacks on the 
applicant and his property as well as obscene insults, which were accompanied by 
almost constant threats of more to come.

	g. Once, for example, the applicant reported that his roommate destroyed almost his 
entire record collection and bragged about it. On another occasion, he picked up the 
applicant by his throat and said that he was going to kill him for having turned on the 
light when he walked into the room. The roommate also put live animals and even 
human feces put into his bed sheets on a regular basis.

	h. These are the type of flashbacks the applicant experiences when triggered by an 
event or situation that reminds him of the time he spent at. Unfortunately, this situation 
of terror gave the applicant a condition of such heightened anxiety that the was unable 
to report the situation to the school authorities in a formal and sustained manner, which 
could have possibly lead to the applicant being able to remain at the institution free of 
constant dread.

	i. As a result, the applicant began to obsessively focus on his own behavior so that 
he could avoid any escalation of the situation and hopefully make it through the rest of 
the semester relatively intact. This obsessive focus on his own behavior and conduct 
unfortunately continued after the applicant moved to a room down the hall and was 
again victimized, apparently this time by teammates of his former roommate. He thus 
became afflicted with and obsessive compulsive disorder in addition to chronic, 
unconscious stress associated with a persistent stressor syndrome. As a consequence, 
he began drifting from one college to the next, in the effort of avoiding whatever 
stressful situation he might find himself in by physically moving to a new environment.

	j. For example, he left after three semesters and went to College to study, but when 
he read in the school paper that was going to join the same athletic conference as he 
immediately dropped out and for a period of time aimlessly roamed the Midwest, 
avoiding at all cost east-west highways that could carry an individual from, for fear of 
accidentally encountering his nemesis. Finally, the applicant found himself in the 
situation where he could no longer continue in college and thereby enlisted in the Army 
with the express provision that he receive training in field operations intelligence 
because he wanted to have a background that would prove useful in a civilian setting, 
such as with the.

	k. The applicant started his military career enthusiastically, even to the extent of 
ignoring the two weeks travel time he had after basic training to get from Fort Ord, 
California to Fort Holabird, Baltimore where he was to attend Advanced Individual 
Training (AIT). 

	l. The applicant reported he arrived eleven days early only to learn, to the 
considerable dismay, that he had been assigned to be trained as a Defense Intelligence 
Analyst instead. He stated that this was a field that had few, if any, civilian applications. 
Nevertheless, he completed the training and waited until he had enough time in grade to 
apply for a transfer to the field operations training program. He stated that when his 
entire graduating class was shipped to Germany, for instance, he was the only recruit 
who remained at Fort Holabird in order not to miss a chance at this training.

	m. As part of the application process, he indicated that he was interviewed in 
downtown Baltimore by individuals in civilian attire who he feels were with either Army 
Counterintelligence or the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Finally, all he needed was 
the approval of his work assignment supervisor, a sergeant.

	n. The applicant stated he was being employed at the time to help train officers in 
interrogation techniques. He reported that he was especially valued for his role in 
portraying captured enemy Soldiers. Unfortunately, however, his supervising sergeant 
told him that the was unqualified for the training program and refused to recommend 
him. Feeling that the world had finally closed in on him and that he had no more options, 
coupled with the underlying sense of dread and insecurity brought on by his 
experiences at the applicant deserted and remained in an absent without leave (AWOL) 
for five years.

	o. During that time, he was able to finish college, start graduate school at, work as a 
teacher of children of migrant farm workers, and get married. Upon turning himself in, 
the applicant reported that he was given an undesirable discharge. 

	p. The applicant remains under the author's care and the author continues to meet 
with him on a weekly basis but his stressor related symptoms continue to negatively 
impact his occupational and social functioning on a daily basis. 

4. On 2 June 1961, the applicant at the age of 21 years old, enlisted in the Army for a 
period of 3 years. His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he attended 
basic training and advanced individual training. 

5. An Extract Copy of Morning Report shows on:

*	17 February 1962, his duty status was changed to ordinary leave
*	20 February 1962, his duty status was changed from ordinary leave to AWOL
*	2 March 1962, his duty status was changed from AWOL to present for duty 
(PDY)
*	2 March 1962, the entry on 20 February 1962 was corrected to show him AWOL 
effective 19 February 1962
*	5 March 1962, the entry on 5 March 1962 was corrected to show AWOL to PDY 
effective 28 February 1962

6. On 1 March 1962, an Incident Report was completed showing the applicant was in 
violation of being AWOL. At 0735, 28 February 1962, Air Police Operations received a 
message from Mexico stating that the applicant would arrive in and was traveling in an 
AWOL status. At 1200, 1 March 1962, the applicant was directed to proceed to his 
home station. 

7. On 5 March 1962, the applicant completed a statement, which states in effect:

	a. During the two or three days preceding 2 June 1961, he worked as a handler of 
agricultural produce, throwing hundred pound sacks of potatoes around. For this work, 
he earned approximately $45.0 per week.

	b. At this point, his recruiting sergeant called him and said that enlistments in the 
category of Intelligence Analyst were once again being accepted.  Accordingly, he went 
back to Phoenix to see if he could pass the physical. Once before, in February of that 
year, he had tried to enlist in the Army and because of bad eyes and faulty hearing, had 
been classified 4-F and refused entrance to the military.

	c. In the meantime, he had gone to an ophthalmologist in phoenix and had his 
eyesight corrected down to 20/20 with glasses and had gone to an ear specialist to 
have his hearing corrected as much as possible. Thus, with that medical treatment 
under his belt and showing a sincere interest to join the military, he squeaked past the 
physical and joined the Army. 

	d. Although the Army would give him three square meals a day, there were other 
reasons which prompted him to join for as long a period of time as three years. Although 
he had already completed three years of college, he was not sure that he wanted to 
teach felt that with a pre-enlistment commitment for Intelligence training, he would have 
the necessary credentials upon separation to get an interesting job with the CIA.  

	e. He got to Fort Holabird to realize his ambitions. He studied very hard and finished 
sixth in a graduating class of 48 students. He was then assigned to the Intelligence 
Platoon at the end of October 1961. Two weeks prior to graduating from his class, he 
received an unwarranted attack by a student in his group. The way it happened was he 
was standing over the water fountain and the Soldier was standing very closely behind 
him. The applicant could not help but bump into the Soldier when he turned around. 

	f. When the applicant bumped into the Soldier, he apologized and instead of 
accepting the apology, the Soldier struck the applicant with his fist in his solar plexus 
and the applicant fell to the floor. After establishing physical superiority over the 
applicant, at that point, the Soldier continued to harass the applicant in various ways.

	g. The harassment consisted of making himself like the applicant's boss, chewing 
him out for every error he made in his work and lying to various field grad officers in the 
area as to the manner in which the applicant performed his duties.

	h. In approximately November 1961, the applicant was assigned the duty of posting 
a situation map. The next day, two other Soldiers were assigned to the duty and the 
applicant was assigned as a simulated guard. The Soldier who hit him was assigned to 
the simulated message center and another Soldier was assigned to the situation map. 

	i. Apparently there was some confusion and the Soldier assigned to the situation 
map did not work on it. The Soldier who hit the applicant was working in close proximity 
and at 100 the situation map was behind schedule. A Major told the Soldier who had hit 
the applicant to get to work on it. The Soldier said the applicant failed to post one unit 
on the map the previous day. When the applicant asked the Soldier if there were any 
more mistakes or if was just one incorrectly placed unit, he did not go into specifics but 
into generalities and launched a tirade of animosity and venom against the applicant.

	j. The applicant did not argue with the Sergeant and must have had a guilty look on 
his face and after that time, nothing he could do in the area was correct as far as the 
people who worked there were concerned. This is an example of the harassment he 
was subjected to by the Soldier. 

	k. The Soldier made insults of an obscene nature and threatened further physical 
violence against the applicant. The Soldier stated if he complained to anyone, he would 
beat the applicant up again. 

	l. The situation between he and the Soldier finally resulted in the applicant receiving 
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failing to report to his place of duty. He had been given 
an assignment with the Soldier and others. He went to the assigned place of duty but 
when there was no one there, he went looking for them. He did not find them but they, 
in the meantime, had arrived at the duty assignment and he was missing. As a result of 
him not being there when the rest of the group arrived, he was given NJP and received 
six hours of extra duty. He had gone alone because he wanted to avoid being with the 
Soldier.

	m. As a result of the NJP, he did not receive his scheduled promotion to private first 
class (PFC) and this was humiliating to him. Also because his section sergeant did not 
respect him for allowing the Soldier to abuse him in the office, he turned in a derogatory 
recommendation when the applicant filed an application for assignment to the Field 
Operations Intelligent (FOI). His request for FOI got turned down the day before his 
promotion to PFC was turned down. 

	n. The difficulty with the Soldier and the ramifications made it more difficult for him to 
adjust to military life and finally the atmosphere became so oppressive that the felt he 
had to get out from under it for a while.

	o. On approximately, 14 February 1962, the applicant put in for a two day leave and 
listed an address in as his destination. He intended to go there because this was where 
he had lived the greater part of his life and he wanted to talk to some of his friends. he 
was going to talk about his situation with them but because it was snowed in in, he 
could not go there.

	p. He then decided that the would go to where he had another good friend who was 
stationed in the Navy. When he started out in that direction, he began to reflect that his 
friend being a well-adjusted Sailor, he would not be sympathetic with the applicant's 
problem. The applicant then decided he just wanted to be alone for awhile on the 
beaches of . 

	q. He left Fort Holabird at about 0700, 17 February 1962. he drove in the general 
direction of but soon after he left he decided he would not go there and he headed in 
the direction of. He spent the first night in his car in. The second night, he slept in a 
blanket by the side of the road in the middle of. While sleeping, someone stole his 
eyeglasses, wallet with $25 to $30, various personal papers, and effects. He still had 
$20 left in his glove compartment, his passport, drivers license, and certificates of title 
for his car. 

	r. He used the remaining $20 to get into. He drove to , left the car in a public parking 
lot and walked across the border into  where he bought a tourist card for three dollars 
and then went to another portion of . He spent the first night in a hotel. 

	s. The next morning, 20 February 1962, he boarded a bus for another part of and 
finally arrived in on 21 February 1962. he had approximately seven dollars left. He went 
to a hotel in where he spent one night. 

	t. He was running low on money and so he went to another hotel in. He stayed at 
this hotel on 22 February 1962. In order to pay the bill, he pawned his watch. 

	u. On the afternoon of 23 February 1962, he went to a fishing community on the 
West Coast of. He slept on a bus during the night of 23 February 1962 and spent the 
nights of 25 and 26 February 1962 in the Americano Hotel where he spent all his time 
on the beaches or at the public plaza. This gave him the opportunity to think out his 
problems thoroughly and calmly. 

	v. He then decided it was best to turn himself in to US military control at the earliest 
opportunity and arrived in next day, where he reported to the US Military Attaché. He 
talked to a colonel (COL) there and explained his situation. The COL sent him by bus to 
an Air Force Base in Laredo, Texas where he reported at 1615, 28 February 1962. 

	w. The next day, he spoke with the Provost Marshall who called the US Army in San 
Antonio, Texas and drove the applicant to turn him over to a member of the Criminal 
Investigation Division, for that area. He was given a three day provisional pass to get to 
Fort Holabird by the most expeditious means. He was to drive to his parents house and 
fly to Fort Holabird. His father had wired him money in Texas to pay for his expenses for 
travel to. He picked up his car on 1 March 1962. He drove from sleeping in his car along 
the way. 

	x. On 4 March 1962, at 0805, he left phoenix and arrived at his duty station at 2045. 
While traveling in he did not use his real name and did not let anyone in know he was a 
US Soldier. While he was in he was not contacted by, nor did he contact, any agent or 
agents of a foreign government other than the customs official. He had contact with a 
girlfriend who was in . They were more or less engaged. Their correspondence dropped 
after basic training. They made tentative plans to get married. She was disillusioned 
with the Army when he told her of the benefits and pay. She was also upset he did not 
ask her parents for her hand in marriage and they ended their relationship.

	y. The applicant developed a stutter in the seventh grade. He had never suffered 
from any mental or nervous disorder. He was treated for the stutter from approximately 
1955 until 1956. The stutter disappeared in 1956. 

	z. The applicant was nervous and tense with some manifestations of depression, but 
he could not say if he was actually suffering from a nervous or mental disorder. he had 
not been under the care of or consulted a psychiatrist. He had never known or 
associated with any person that he knew to be a homosexual. He had never had any 
kind of sexual act with a member of the same sex. He was not a homosexual. Other 
than the situations already explained, he had no reason for going AWO. He was willing 
to undergo a lie detector examination regarding his statement.  

8. An Extract Copy of Morning Report shows on 6 March 1962, there was a correction 
to entries on 2 March 1962 and 5 March 1962 to show:

*	AWOL to PDY (Confined to Quarters) effective 1615 28 February 1962, voluntary 
surrender
*	AWOL to PDY (Restricted to Quarters) effective 1615 28 February 1962, 
voluntary surrender

9. On 7 March 1962, the applicant's commander preferred a charge of AWOL against 
the applicant. The applicant pled to and was found guilty of the charge. His sentence 
was forfeiture of $40.00 for one month. The Convening Authority approved the sentence 
and ordered it executed on 12 March 1962. 

10. On 24 March 1962, the applicant received a Certificate of Training for completion of 
the Fire Prevention and Protection Basic Course.  

11. On 1 May 1962, the applicant completed a statement, which states in effect:

	a. He had been counseled and advised of the basis for the action recommended. He 
had been furnished a copy of the Commanding Officer's report and copies of statements 
submitted to support the recommendation for elimination and the names of the 
prospective witness to appear against him. He was afforded the opportunity of 
requesting counsel and declined.

	b. He requested a hearing by a board of officers be waived and that he be 
discharged. He further understood if the convening authority directed discharge, he 
would not e given another opportunity to appear before a board of officers before being 
discharged. He did not desire to submit a written statement on his own behalf. 

12. On 2 May 1962, the applicant's commander completed a memorandum entitled 
request for board of officers to consider the elimination of the applicant from the Army 
for unsuitability. 

13. An Extract Copy of Morning Report shows on:

*	6 June 1962, the applicant's duty status was changed to AWOL
*	8 June 1962, the applicant's primary military occupational specialty (PMOS) was 
changed
*	12 June 1962, the applicant was changed from being qualified to unqualified in 
his PMOS

14. On 8 June 1962, a Report for Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions was 
completed on the applicant for being AWOL and investigation for possible courts-
martial. 

15. On 12 June 1962, the applicant's commander wrote a letter to the applicant's father 
informing him the applicant was AWOL. If the father had any contact with the applicant 
he was encouraged to have him return to duty. 

16. On 26 June 1962, a Disposition Form states the applicant appeared before a board 
of officers on 28 May 1962. The board found the applicant qualified for military service 
and recommended he be retained in service and transferred to another command. In 
view of the applicant's continued AWOL since on or about 6 June 1962, the findings and 
recommendations were disapproved on 25 June 1962 by the appointing authority. 

17. A First Progress Report from 6 June 1962 to 30 June 1962, states in effect:

	a. At approximately 0805, 6 June 1962 a member of the unit reported that the 
applicant was AWOL.

	b. On 6 June 1962, a PFC was interviewed regarding the applicant's AWOL. He 
stated at 1730 on 5 June 1962, when he returned to his billets he saw the applicant 
taking two suitcases from his wall locker. The applicant asked the PFC if the supply 
room was open. The applicant said he was going to put the suitcases in the supply 
room. The PFC claimed he did not know the applicant was going to go AWOL. 

	c. The PFC stated from previous conversations with the applicant, he believed the 
applicant might have gone to since he spoke fluent Spanish and corresponded with a 
girl in . The PFC also said the applicant had talked about another city in quite a bit, 
since he had returned from his last AWOL in .

	d. On 16 June 1962, mail sent by the applicant was returned undelivered. It had 
been addressed to an individual in 

	e. A letter dated 19 June 1962, from the applicant's father was received in response 
to a letter dated 12 June 1962 that was sent to his father. The applicant's father stated 
the applicant had gone to. In his present frame of mind the applicant was not going to 
voluntarily return to military control. The father would have the applicant on hand should 
a discharge be offered to him. The father also stated in reference to the board of officers 
who found him suitable for service that the applicant had indicated he learned he was to 
be kept in the Army for another two years and was not to be discharged and that was 
why he went AWOL.

	f. On 15 June 1962, the applicant's defense counsel executed a sworn statement 
where in he stated he did not advise the applicant of the Bard's decision. Another sworn 
statement from a Second Lieutenant (2LT) stated that on the day the board convened 
he told the defense counsel of the outcome of the board action but he did not informed 
the applicant of the recommendation. 

	g. On 25 June 1962, the adjutant general answered the applicant's father's letter 
urging that he advise the applicant to report to the nearest military authority. 

	h. No further progress reports would be submitted pending receipt of positive 
information concerning the whereabouts or apprehension of the applicant. 

	i. On the basis of the report it was concluded that the applicant, on or about 6 June 
1962, without proper authority and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently, 
did absent himself from his organization and had apparently left the continental limits of 
the United States by entering Mexico with intent to remain absent in desertion. 

18. An Extract Copy of Morning Report shows on 5 July 1962, the applicant was 
dropped from rolls (DFR). 

19. On 7 August 1962, the applicant's commander preferred a charge stating the 
applicant did on or about 6 June 1962 without proper authority and with intent to remain 
away therefrom permanently absent himself from his organization and did remain so 
absent in desertion until on or after 7 August 1962.

20. An undated Company Commander's Letter of Inquiry, stated in effect:

	a. The applicant was court-martialed for being AWOL for a period of eight days, on 
or about 19 February 1962. He was fined $40. His explanation for the absence was not 
very clear and psychiatric evaluation was requested. After several discussions with the 
applicant, it was decided to cancel that appointment. Subsequently, the applicant asked 
for an interview with the psychiatrist for his own information and possible assistance. As 
a result of this interview, the applicant was removed from overseas orders and was 
ordered to appear before a board of officers to determine whether he should be 
released from active duty or retained. At the time the applicant was ad vised of the 
pending action, he waived the board action and also waived counsel if a board was 
convened. Counsel was provided.

	b. It was believed the applicant was aware of the board’s decision to recommend 
retention on active duty and upon learning of this decision, unofficially he again 
absented himself.

	c. During the discussion, prior to the psychiatric evaluation, the applicant indicated 
that whatever his problem was, he felt he could overcome it and successfully complete 
his tour of duty. He agreed that this course of action was preferable to separation under 
other than honorable conditions. As a result of this discussion, the commander 
recommended to the board that he be retained on active duty.

	d. During the applicant's first unauthorized absence, the applicant went to and 
subsequently returned to military control in Texas. The commander believed the 
applicant was again in as he allegedly had a girlfriend there. There was no indication 
the applicant was going to absent himself prior to his actual departure. There was little 
doubt however that he would remain absent until apprehended by civil authorities. 

21. On 28 September 1962, the applicant's father sent a letter to a COL state, in effect:

	a. On 6 June or thereabouts, his son, the applicant, went AWOL from the Army. On 
19 June, the applicant's father wrote to the Commanding General about the applicant. 
Evidently that letter was referred to the COL for reply. Inasmuch, the applicant's father 
received the COL's letter dated 25 June stating the COL though the applicant's father 
should urge the applicant to return. 

	b. When the applicant's father became aware of the applicant's whereabouts, his 
father told him it was his opinion the applicant should return, clear himself, and try for a 
discharge since he was so obviously unsuited for the Army. 

	c. The applicant was living in. On 28 September the applicant's father sent him a 
long letter with some money urging him to go home and turn himself over to Military 
authorities. It took some time for mail to get through into but the father told the applicant 
to telephone him collect on 2 October. If the applicant could call, the father would again 
urge him to return.

	d. The applicant's father did not answer the COL's letter earlier since he couldn't 
locate his son for quite some time so there was nothing much the father could tell the 
COL. The father had written the applicant telling him the FBI was looking for him 
although the father questioned their ability to extradite the applicant due to some kind of 
southern hemisphere treaty an attorney friend tried to explain to him.

	e. The important thing was to get the applicant back to the country so that, should he 
have any chance of making a future for himself, it would not be quashed by the threat 
hanging over his head.

	f. The father gave the FBI personnel the applicant's last known address. Even if they 
accomplished nothing, he hoped to have more information for the COL regarding the 
applicant's return because he knew if he could talk to the applicant on the phone he 
could convince the applicant that the only logical and right thing to do was to return and 
get the matter settled.

22. On 18 October 1962, the applicant's father supplemented his letter to the COL 
stating, in effect:

	a. The applicant's father had further correspondence with the applicant and strongly 
urged him to return to the country.

	b. The applicant assured his father that is one thing he had no intention of doing. He 
had an overpowering fear and dread of the Army and he was very unhappy where he 
was. He had been quite ill off and on and was not eating properly in 

	c. The applicant needed psychiatric help very badly but he could not get that in. If he 
was afraid to return, he could not be in the United States to get help either. 

	d. It remained a problem. To the COL the applicant was just another AWOL Soldier, 
but he was his father's only son and he was greatly concerned and totally helpless.

	e. The only solution, as the applicant's father, could see it was for the Army to grant 
the applicant some kind of discharge to be ride of him as he would certainly never be a 
man that the Armed Services would be please or proud to have in their ranks. Insofar as 
the punishment due to the applicant from Army, nothing the Army could or would do to 
him would be any comparison to what he was suffering. The father knew that but the 
applicant' didn't. It seemed they were at an impasse and the father didn't know how it 
would turn out. 

23. On 29 October 1962, the COL responded to the applicant's father stating, in effect, 
in accordance with Army Regulation, the applicant had been DFRd as a deserter. This 
action was mandatory upon the expiration of 29 days from the initial date of AWOL.

24. On 30 August 1963, an attorney, hired by the applicant's parents, wrote a letter to 
the Adjutant General, which states in effect:

	a. The parents of the applicant retained him to represent the applicant who had been 
AWOL since 6 June 1962.

	b. Just prior to leaving For Holabird, Army psychiatrists had recommended the 
applicant be discharged as being unfit for duty. This should be reveled from the medical 
records in the Army's possession. At the hearing, which was to determine whether an 
undesirable discharge would be granted, the report of the psychiatrist was disregarded 
and the recommendations of the applicant's company commander were accepted as the 
final determination. It was after this hearing the applicant became AWOL. 

	c. The applicant was in outside the jurisdiction of the United States. Although he 
wanted to remain in his parent would like to have the matter reviewed in order that the 
applicant did not lose one of his most cherished possessions, his citizenship. 

	d. From the facts revealed to the attorney, it would seem the applicant broke down 
mentally because of the pressures of military life and should have been discharged as 
an undesirable and should not be considered a deserter.

	e. The attorney and his family wanted to know whether or not the Adjutant General 
could review the hearing in order that the applicant be granted an undesirable 
discharge. 

25. On 8 October 1963, the Adjutant General sent a letter to the attorney stating, in 
effect since the applicant's AWOL no action would be taken to adjudicate his case until 
he returned to military control. If the applicant's whereabouts were to become known, he 
should be urged to report to the nearest military post within the United States without 
delay. If he returned to military control, he could be assured that his legal right would be 
adequately protected and any facts of circumstances presented in his behalf would 
receive consideration. 

26. The applicant Service Record shows:

	a. (Section 1) Appointments, Promotions, or Reduction:

*	Private/E-1 2 June 1962
*	Private/E-2 2 October 1961
*	PFC 18 April 1962

	b. (Section 4) Chronological Record of Military Service:

*	2 June 1961 Enroute to Fort Ord, California
*	8 June 1961 Fort Ord, California
*	5 August 1961 Enroute to Fort Holabird, Maryland
*	5 July 1962 DFRd

	c. (Section 6) Lost Time 19 February 1962 to 7 February 1962 9 days AWOL, 6 June 
1962 to 4 July 1962 29 days AWOL. 

27. The applicant's separation packet was not available for the Board's review; 
however, his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer of 
Discharge) shows:

	a. Block 11c (Reason and Authority): He was discharged under the provisions of 
Section VIII, Army Regulation 635-206 (Discharge Misconduct).

	b. Block 11d (Effective Date): 26 October 1967

	c. Block 13 (Character of Service): Under Conditions other Than Honorable.

	d. Block 22 a(1) (Net Service this Period) 11 months and 25 days.

	e. Block 30 (Remarks):  Item 11 c (Reason and Authority) Deserted 6 June 1962.

28. The applicant petitioned the ABCMR for an upgraded discharge and on 28 February 
1984, the ABCMR sent him a letter stating his application had been denied. 

29. The applicant is requesting an upgrade of his discharge due to him experiencing 
traumatic events prior to joining the military. These events for which he has receive 
psychological treatment triggered his traumatic experiences which led him to become a 
deserter. He had time to reflect on the errors which he made while in the military and 
has led an exemplary life which entailed obtaining a Ph.D and teaching for many years 
as a university professor.

	a. The applicant provides a letter from a licensed psychologist which explains the 
traumatic events he encountered while in college, which were further exasperated while 
in military service.

	b. The applicant's service records show he went AWOL in February 1962 for 9 days 
and again in June 1962 until his discharge on 26 October 1967. 

	c. The applicant's service records indicate he was seen by a psychiatrist who stated 
he was not qualified for further military service; however, the psychiatrist's examination 
was not available for the Board's review.

	d. The absence of the applicant's separation packet means we are unable to 
determine the specific circumstance(s) that led to his discharge; however, despite the 
unavailability of the applicant's separation packet, and in light of the record copy of his 
DD Form 214, the Board presumes the applicant's leadership completed his separation 
properly. This presumption notwithstanding, the lack of a separation packet represents 
an administrative irregularity. 

	e. At the time of the applicant's discharge, mental health issues were unrecognized 
by the medical community and Department of the Defense (DOD). However, both the 
medical community and DOD now have a more thorough understanding of mental 
health issues and their potential to serve as a causative factor in a Soldier's misconduct 
when the condition is not diagnosed and treated in a timely fashion. Soldiers who 
suffered from mental heal issues and were separated solely for misconduct subsequent 
to a traumatic event warrant careful consideration for the possible re-characterization of 
their overall service even if the mental health condition was not diagnosed until years 
later.

	f. Boards are to give liberal consideration to veterans petitioning for discharge relief 
when the application for relief is based in whole or in part of mental health conditions, 
including PTSD. The veteran’s testimony alone, oral or written, may establish the 
existence of a condition or experience, that the condition or experience existed during or 
was aggravated by military service, and that the condition or experience excuses or 
mitigates the discharge.

	g. Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time stated Section VIII (Separation of 
Certain Wartime and Peacetime Deserters) stated it provided for the separation of 
individuals who have remained continuously in a status of desertion for more than three 
years. 

	h. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, her 
service record, and her statements in light of the published guidance on equity, 
injustice, or clemency.        

30. MEDICAL REVIEW:

The applicant is applying to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) 
for reconsideration of his request to upgrade his under other than honorable conditions 
characterization of service.
    a.  The applicant states, in effect, he is requesting that his under other than honorable 
conditions discharge be changed to an honorable discharge. He experienced traumatic 
events, prior to the military for which he has been under psychological treatment for 
over 10 years up to the present time. His military service triggered his traumatic 
experiences, which led him to become a deserter.
    b.  The ABCMR Behavioral Health (BH) Advisor was asked to review this case. 
Documentation reviewed includes:
*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	Behavioral Health Documentation
    c.  VA electronic medical record, Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) was reviewed.
    d.  A review of the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application 
(AHLTA) & Health Artifacts Image Management Solutions (HAIMS) were not reviewed 
as they were not in use at the time of service. 
    e.  The applicant's service records show he went AWOL in February 1962 for 9 days 
and again in June 1962 until his discharge on 26 October 1967.
    f.  The applicant supplied a document from Mid-Valley Behavioral Health and 
Psychological Services, completed by a licensed psychologist dated 27 APR 2021. The 
provider who has seen the applicant more than 100 sessions contends that while the 
applicant had PTSD pre-service, it was exacerbated by his military service and it 
impacted his military career. Additionally, there are multiple documents that clearly 
indicate that the applicant is suffering from behavioral issues that are impacting his 
decision making ability. 
    g.  After reviewing the available information and in accordance with the 3 Sep 2014 
Hagel Liberal Consideration Memorandum and the 25 Aug 2017 Clarifying Guidance, it 
is the opinion of the Agency Behavioral Health advisor that the applicant has a 
mitigating diagnosis of PTSD. Under liberal guidance, PTSD is a mitigating factor for his 
misconduct.  AWOL (avoidance) is part of the sequela of symptoms associated with 
PTSD. 
    h.  Kurta Questions
(1) Does any evidence state that the applicant had a condition or experience that 
may excuse or mitigate a discharge? 
(a) Yes. Applicant diagnosed with PTSD that was exacerbated by military 
service.
(2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? 
(a) Yes. Applicant diagnosed with PTSD that was exacerbated by military 
service.
(3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? 
(a) Yes. After reviewing the available information and in accordance with the 3 
Sep 2014 Hagel Liberal Consideration Memorandum and the 25 Aug 2017 
Clarifying Guidance, it is the opinion of the Agency Behavioral Health advisor 
that the applicant has a mitigating diagnosis of PTSD. Under liberal guidance, 
PTSD is a mitigating factor for his misconduct.  AWOL (avoidance) is part of 
the sequela of symptoms associated with PTSD.

BOARD DISCUSSION:

After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief 
was warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant's record of service, 
documents submitted in support of the petition and executed a comprehensive and 
standard review based on law, policy and regulation, and published Department of 
Defense guidance for liberal and clemency determinations requests for upgrade of his 
characterization of service.  Upon review of the applicant’s petition, available military 
records and the medical advisory the Board concurred with the advising official finding
the applicant has a mitigating diagnosis of PTSD. Under liberal guidance, PTSD is a 
mitigating factor for his misconduct.  AWOL (avoidance) is part of the sequela of 
symptoms associated with PTSD.  There Board determined there was sufficient 
evidence to show the applicant’s behavioral health issues were exacerbated by his 
military service and it impacted his military career. Additionally, there are multiple 
documents that clearly indicate that the applicant is suffering from behavioral issues that 
are impacting his decision-making ability.  Based on this, the Board granted relief to 
upgrade the applicant’s discharge to honorable. 


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 
Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by amending his DD Form 214 
for the period ending 26 October 1967 to show his characterization of service as 
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): N/A


REFERENCES:

1. Title 10, USC, 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 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 635-206, in effect at the time stated Section VIII (Separation of 
Certain Wartime and Peacetime Deserters) stated it provided for the separation of 
individuals who have remained continuously in a status of desertion for more than three 
years. 

3. Army Regulation 635-200, prescribes  policies and procedures for enlisted 
administrative separations.  

	a. An honorable discharge was a separation with honor; commanders issued an 
honorable discharge certificate based on the Soldier's proper military behavior and 
proficient duty performance. Separation authorities could characterize a Soldier's 
service as honorable if he/she received at least "Good" for conduct, and at least "Fair" 
for efficiency. In addition, the Soldier could not have had one general court-martial or 
more than one special court-martial conviction.

	b. A general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions, 
where the Soldier's military record was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an 
honorable discharge.

4. On 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge 
Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records 
(BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical 
considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former 
service members administratively discharged 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 applicant's service.

5. 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 (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.   

6. 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 type of court-martial.  
However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-
martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may 
be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice.  

      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, 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.  

      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//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20210016594


1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	AR20210016594


1