IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 August 2022 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220001814 APPLICANT’S REQUEST: liberal consideration for upgrade of his discharge to honorable due to undocumented post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * 2 x DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) * 2 x Request for Transfer * 3 x Court-Martial Orders * Neuropsychiatric Report * Portion of Memorandum * Election of Rights * Chain of Command Recommendations for Separation * Portion of DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) * 4 x Letters from Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) * 3 x Statements in Support of Claim * Progress Notes FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records 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. 3. Clemency guidance to the Boards for Correction of Military/Navy Records (BCM/NR) does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority to ensure each case will be assessed on its own merits. In determining whether to grant relief 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. This includes consideration of changes in policy, whereby a service member under the same circumstances today would reasonably be expected to receive a more favorable outcome. 4. The applicant states, in effect: a. He is requesting liberal consideration to correct his character of service to honorable conditions due to undocumented or undiagnosed PTSD. b. He never spoke of his experiences he had, while in Vietnam. There are things that still haunt him to this day. c. Now, he has mental health issues related to the exposure of Agent Orange. He has diabetes mellitus type II, ischemic heart disease, and prostate cancer. d. He receives treatment from the VA under Chapter 17. The upgrade would allow him to receive compensation and if he dies due to one of these presumptive diseases, his spouse could obtain survivors benefits. e. During his separation proceedings, one of his commanders recommended that he receive an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. f. He had good performance reviews and obtained the rank of E-5 prior to nonjudicial punishment (NJP) and 4 days of being absent without leave (AWOL). The personal issues and family matters he was going through were significant and affected his ability to serve. 5. The applicant provides the following documents, not contained in his service record, for the Board's consideration: a. A letter from the VA, dated 9 March 2021, which states in effect: (1) The author was writing in reference to the applicant who she had been the PCP for for 6 six years. (2) The applicant had severe PTSD that he had been dealing with since he left Vietnam over 50 years. While in Vietnam, he was witness to his lieutenant being killed in the passenger seat next to him, given orders to run over adults and children while on convoy, being overrun in a fox hole and watching his friends die next to him, and being stated five miles from the DMA, which made for constant fear of attack and being killed. (3) He had been dealing with symptoms of PTSD since he returned from Vietnam, which resulted in multiple failed marriages, distant relationships with his children, alcoholism, PTSD symptoms daily and anger issues. (4) He continues to experience these symptoms to this day and they impact his everyday life such as being on guard always, securing his home like a fortress at night, difficulty sleeping due to nightmares and dreams, inability to have anyone come up behind him for any reason, inability to be around sudden noises such as a car back firing or fireworks cause the applicant to be taken back to Vietnam. (5) The applicant had not sough treatment in the past stating he was not ready to go there with anybody as documented by his previous provider in 2012. He developed a trust with this provider and experienced an event in 2019 with his brother passing away with the applicant holding his hand. That caused the applicant to spiral back to his Vietnam service. (6) The applicant was finally ready to engage in individual counseling but only with the author stating he trusted her and felt comfortable talking to her but no one else. (7) The applicant engages in weekly counseling sessions with the author with his wife to deal wit his PTSD symptoms. He states that counseling has helped him considerably to be able to deal better on a daily basis with his PTSD symptoms but continues to have difficulty sleeping though on trazadone and experiences daily difficulties in dealing with every day life due to his severe PTSD that affects him significantly in his everyday life and affects his quality of life. He has endured this pain related to his severe PTSD for over 50 years and feels he deserves to be compensated for this. b. A letter from the VA, dated 16 August 2021, which states, they had made a decision on his claim for service connected compensation. He received service connection for treatment purposes only of: * diabetes mellitus II * PTSD * prostrate cancer * ischemic heart condition c. A VA Decision document, dated 16 August 2021, which the applicant brings the following areas to the Board's attention: (1) The applicant starred "The evidence fails to show that you were exposed to herbicides, during a period of qualifying military service. The evidence fails to show that you have been diagnosed with diabetes mellitus II that has been linked to that period of qualifying military service. Consequently, service connection for diabetes mellitus II for compensation purposes was denied." (2) The applicant put a question mark "To reopen the claim for service connection for compensation purposes for this condition, you must provide evidence to show you were exposed to herbicides during a period of qualifying service." (3) The applicant starred "you claimed service connection for the following conditions based on service in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN). You were stationed in RVN from 28 August 1966 to 28 August 1967. 7The period of service during which you were stationed in RVN 11 March 1963 to 9 September 1968 was terminated by an other than honorable discharge. That period of service has been found to be disqualifying for VA purposes. Consequently, service connection for compensation purposes cannot be granted any condition that is related to service in the RVN." (4) The applicant starred ";during the period of qualifying service there is no evidence of combat participation. During that period of service, there is no evidence of treatment for or diagnosis of PTSD. There is no evidence of treatment for or diagnosis of PTSD from the date you left service until approximately 18 December 2020. The evidence from Beaver County VA Clinic shows you were diagnosed with PSTSD on or about 18 December 2020. There is nothing in that evidence linking this condition to the period of qualifying service." (5) The applicant put a question mark "you did not respond to the 19 February 2021 request for evidence to show that the disqualifying period of service should be considered honorable for VA purposes." (6) The applicant put an arrow "you claimed service connection for the following conditions based on service in RVN. You were stationed in RVN from 28 August 1966 to 28 August 1967. The period of service during which you were stationed in RVN 11 March 1963 to 9 September 1968, was terminated by an other than honorable discharge. That period of service has been found to be disqualifying for VA purposes. Consequently, service connection for compensation purposes cannot be granted for any condition that is related to service in the RVN. The evidence from Beaver County VA Clinic shows you were diagnosed with prostate cancer in January 2021. There is nothing in that evidence linking this condition to the period of qualifying service." (7) The applicant put a question mark "you did not respond to the 19 February 2021 request for evidence to show that the disqualifying period of service should be considered honorable for VA purposes." (8) The complete document is available for the Board's review. d. A VA document entitled Administrative Decision, which shows in effect: (1) Issue: Character of Discharge Determination (2) Decision: The applicant's United States Army service from 10 March 1961 through 10 March 1963 was under honorable conditions and is not a bar to VA benefits. His United States Army service from 11 March 1963 through 9 September 1968 is under dishonorable conditions and is a bar to VA benefits. He was entitled to health care benefits for any disability determined to be service connected between the dates of 10 March 1961 through 9 September 1968. (3) A discharge or release because of one of the offenses specified is considered to have been issued under dishonorable conditions. They are: * acceptance of an undesirable discharge to escape trial by general court- martial * mutiny or spying * an offense involving moral turpitude * willful or persistent misconduct * homosexual acts (4) The evidence of records shows the veteran enlisted in the US Army on 10 March 1961 and received an honorable discharge from 10 March 1961 through 10 March 1963. He reenlisted for a period of 6 years on 11 March 1963 with eligible active duty discharge date of 10 March 1969. The applicant received an other than honorable discharge due to indebtedness on 9 September 1968. (5) Based on the following evidence of record, the applicant shows he was discharged due to an offense involving willful misconduct: * 16 May 1963, NJP for disobeying a direct order from a noncommissioned officer (NCO) * 18 September 1964, NJP for AWOl and speeding * 2 April 1966, NJP for AWOL less than 24 hours * 5 June 1966, NJP for failing to register his vehicle * 4 April 1968, NJP for failing to obey a lawful order from a superior officer, failing to go to his appointed place of duty * 29 April 1968, NJP for being AWOL from 25 April 1968 to 26 April 1968 * AWOL from 1 June 1968 to 2 June 1968 * Letters of indebtedness amounting to $3,500 at the time of his separation * Military Police Blotter entries on 22 January 1968, 3 February 1968, 3 May 1968 and 7 June 1968 * Mental health evaluation on 18 June 1968, he self-reported he was in debt and to pay off debts he chose to get out of the military by deliberately going AWOL * Sanity was not an issue (6) The complete document is available for the Board's consideration. e. A letter from the VA, dated 17 August 2021, which states they made a decision regarding his discharge from military service. Every effort was made to see that his claim received complete consideration. The letter reiterates the previous decision of the VA. The complete letter is available for the Board's consideration. f. A statement in support of claim for service connection for PTSD which was not dated. The applicant states, in effect: (1) When he first got to Vietnam, he was assigned to drive the lead vehicle in convoy. The Lieutenant would stand and fire his weapon at anyone that was coming out in front of them. When he needed back up, the applicant would fire his weapon and then proceed to run over anyone who was still in the road sometimes this included women and children that the enemy was using for cover. it made him sick to do it but it was necessary for their survival. On one incident, the Lieutenant was shot by someone in an ambush and the applicant took him to medics where he later dies. (2) They were five miles from the DMZ and they were sleeping in bunkers to guard the compound. The enemy would come and attack almost nightly. He would have to shoot or be shot. He lost many friends in these nightly battles. He would turn and look after the firing stopped and see them shot in the chest and they would be dead or fatally wounded and he would stay in with them while taking their last breath until the medics would come take them away. Still today there are times in the late night where he closes his eyes and can hear them and see them dying all over again. (3) The sound of the bombs and explosions haunt him still today as well as the screams of his dying friends. He admits he turned into an alcoholic to deal with his Vietnam experiences. He was full of anger, when he returned home and would fight in bars almost every night. It cost him two failed marriages and a relationship with his first four children, when they were young. (4) He has an actual hate and extreme distrust for Asian people. After he met his current wife, of forty three years, he started auto racing to distract him and to keep him from drinking and fighting. (5) He still has nightmares that wake him up and id doesn't know where he is. He wakes up tired and sweating and shaking. He hates fireworks of any kind as it reminds him of explosions and death from being so close to the DMZ. If anyone touches him from behind still today, he swings to hurt. He made the mistake about a year ago and watched a documentary of Vietnam and he didn't sleep for days and when he did fall asleep, he would have nightmares. It actually spilled over to his job and he threatened people he worked with of bodily harm. It almost cost him his job. He tries to avoid those triggers but sometimes it's impossible. g. A Statement in Support of Claim, from the applicant's wife, which states, in effect: (1) She met the applicant in 1975 and knew right away he had a bad alcohol issue. They started dating in 1976 just after his second failed marriage. It was in July near the fourth and they were at the drive in. Someone threw a strip of firecrackers behind them and the applicant immediately pushed her onto the floor and laid on top of him. After a few minutes, he helped her up and took her home. He was sweating to the extreme and he couldn't stop shaking. (2) The next incident was at a party a few months later. He had a mixed drink in his hand and someone threw a firecracker and he crushed the heavy glass in his hands. he took them to car again sweating and shaking. (3) Numerous times he would be drinking when he picked her up. He would do reckless things like speeding and had road rage really bad. He would pick fights with strangers just to be able to fight. He always seemed like he was angry but would never talk about it. (4) They took up dirt track auto racing to keep him busy and away from alcohol as much as they could. They ended up getting married in 1977. (5) Several times over the years, since they've been married, she would be awakened by him chocking her in his sleep until she could get him to wake up. He never was a good sleeper. He would, and still does, what seems to be fighting and sweating and screaming out in his sleep. It didn't take her long to learn not to touch him to wake him up as he has swung and hit him in the enemy. She was an enemy. There are still times when he wakes up from nightmares and doesn't know where he is. (6) Until recently, he wasn't sleeping even for days at a time. He is now able to sleep by taking trazadone at night. (7) She's learned by trial and error and they can't watch anything that is war related because that triggers him into anger and nightmares at times. It would spill over into trouble at work for days after. Fireworks to him equal bombs and gunfire. A car backfired and he was in a panic. (8) His guard and anger and distrust for Asian people is still a problem. Eating at an Asian restaurant is never an option. Darkness and nighttime are a real fear for him as they must close all curtains and lock all doors at dark. She is constantly worried about avoiding those triggers. (9) She spoke to his first wife and in speaking with his children, she found that he never hurt her or them. She did tell his wife that when he come home from Vietnam he had changed into a different man. He was very angry, cold hearted, and an alcoholic. He would never talk about what happened. He choked his first wife's next boyfriend and told him if he ever hurt her or the children again, the applicant would kill him. His bar fights were frequent and no formal charges were ever filed. Because of the alcoholism and anger issues it ended their marriage. h. A second Statement in Support of Claim from the applicant's wife, which states in effect: (1) She is the spouse of the applicant and they have been married for 43 and a half years. (2) Over the years, she has helped him through many instances where he was angry and afraid from nightmares from his service in Vietnam. (3) He has choked her and punched her at night until she was able to wake him. (4) He has always been very proud of his service to God and country. When he was fighting for his country he had to do and see unspeakable things. He had excellence service from 1961 to 1967. He then had unsatisfactory service from late 1967 to the time of his discharge. (5) The biggest problem was he was sending money home to his first wife and she wasn't paying any bills. After much frustration and serious thought, he sat down with his wife and decided the only way to get out of the Army early was to be disruptive. (6) He then proceeded to do what he had to do to rectify the situation. He then was busted from rank to rank. It was suggested he get an under honorable conditions (general) discharge but it ended up being entered as under other than honorable condition. He has been torn by his decisions over the years and feels hurt tat he had to do it. i. Progress notes, dated 14 January 2021, which show he had hypertension, obesity, osteoarthritis of bilateral knee, Anxiety/Depression/PTSD, insomnia, chronic low back pain, and Alzheimer's dementia. 6. On 10 March 1961, the applicant enlisted in the Army for a period of 3 years. His DA Form 20 shows he entered basic training on 10 March 1961 and advanced individual training on 24 May 1961. 7. The applicant's enlistment Report of Medical Examination shows he had no medical issues and was qualified for enlistment in the Army. 8. On 13 February 1963, the applicant completed a Report of Medical History, which states he was in good health. 9. On 10 March 1963, the applicant was issued a DD Form 214, which shows he entered active duty on 10 March 1961 and was honorably released on 10 March 1961 for immediate reenlistment. He had served 2 years and 1 day of active duty service. 10. On 11 March 1963, the applicant completed an immediate reenlistment for six years. 11. On 6 May 1963, the applicant accepted NJP for disobeying a direct order from an NCO. His punishment included extra duty for 14 days. He did not appeal his punishment. 12. On 18 September 1964, the applicant accepted NJP for absenting himself for his appointed place of duty and for speeding. His punishment included forfeiture of $35. He did not appeal his punishment. 13. On 2 April 1966, the applicant accepted NJP for absenting himself from his unit. His punishment included reduction to the rank of corporal/E-4. He did not appeal his punishment. 14. On 4 June 1966, the applicant accepted NJP for violating a lawful general regulation. The punishment portion of the NJP was not available for the Board's consideration; however, he did not appeal his punishment. 15. On 14 January 1967, a document entitled Request for transfer shows the applicant was requesting to be transferred to another company. The transfer was recommended for disapproval. The applicant's conduct and efficiency were both rated excellent. 16. On 6 March 1967, a Special Court-Martial Order was published showing the applicant was found not guilty of failing to obey a lawful order. 17. On 24 June 1967, Special Orders were published reassigning the applicant. 18. On 26 July 1967, Special Orders were published promoting the applicant to the rank of specialist/E-4. 19. The applicant received letters showing he was indebted, which the applicant responded to, on: * 31 August 1967 * 20 September 1967 * 16 November 1967 * 1 December 1967 * 21 December 1967 * 25 January 1968 * 29 January 1968 * 1 March 1968 * 10 May 1968 * 23 May 1968 20. On 13 November 1967, the applicant completed a statement in regards to the debt he owed for his automobile because it was in the shop getting repaired. The complete statement is available for the Board's consideration. 21. An undated statement by a Staff Sergeant (SSG), states in effect: a. He was assigned to his unit on 2 January 1968. During the month of January, they were preparing for a brigade inspection. As he checked the platoon's personal equipment, he learned the applicant did not have his Army equipment. The SSG questioned the applicant regarding the last time he had used his equipment to with the applicant had responded 14 December. He had left if in a truck and had not been back to look in the vehicle nor had he asked anyone about his equipment. After the SSG found out what vehicle it was, he asked the driver about the equipment and was told the equipment had been taken out and placed in the wire shop on top of a wall lock. The applicant looked and found his equipment. The SSG counseled the applicant on the matter and was told it would not happen again. b. On the 15th of February, one of the platoon's NCOs brought to the SSG's attention that the applicant did not want to do anything he was told to do. He would give the NCO back talk and not do what he was told to do. The SSG counseled the applicant and let him know the SSG would not stand for his back talking an NCO, if he was told to do something he would do it, and if he thought it was unjust he could go to see the SSG and he would straighten thing out for him or send him to the platoon leader. The applicant did not go see the SSG regarding problems. c. On or about 15 March, they were having a quarterly clothing inspection and the SSG asked the applicant to bring all of his military clothing in to the platoon barracks so they could be inspected. The applicant told the SSG he had everything and asked fi he couldn't let his clothing and equipment stay at his residence. The SSG told him no, it had to be physically checked, put on paper, and turned in to the platoon. The SSG called the Message Center where the applicant worked and was told the applicant had his equipment with him but the SSG would have to go to the message center because he did not have time to take it to the platoon barracks. The SSG informed the applicant to take the equipment to the wire shop at 1800 hours the same day and the SSG would be there to inspect it. The applicant went with about half of his initial issue and no Army equipment. The applicant said his equipment was in a locker in the barracks and that an NCO had the key to the locker. The SSG gave him specific instructions to call the NCO when he got home that nigh so the SSG would have the key available the next day. The SSG personally contacted the NCO the afternoon of 16 March and the applicant had not called him. The applicant counseled the applicant again on doing what he was told and being where he was told to be and at the time he was told to be there. At that time, the SSG gave him a list of everything he was supposed to have and ordered him to be at the same place at 1300 hours on 16 March with his clothing and equipment. d. On the 16 March, after the SSG finished with the brigade inspection, he wen to the wire shop and found a note on his desk saying the applicant called and said he would have to wait until Monday because he had gotten a job and was gone to work. On Monday, the applicant was before the company commander for NJP. After that, the applicant got slow about reporting for duty. On or about the 1st of April, the applicant was absent from duty. He reported for duty at 0900 and was counseled by a Sergeant First Class after that he just took off for four days. When he returned, he was moved to a different platoon. 22. An undated statement from a Second Lieutenant (2LT), states in effect: a. The 2LT went to the unit in January 1968. During the month of January, while preparing for a brigade inspection, a SSG informed him that the applicant was missing some of his equipment. It was found the applicant had carelessly misplaced this equipment and the 2LT and SSG counseled him on the importance of taking care of his equipment and the applicant stated he would take better care of it. b. On 15 February, the SSG brough to the 2LT's attention that the applicant was causing a problem with his immediate NCO. The 2LT counseled the applicant on this matter and started watching him closer. c. On or about 15 March, the communications platoon was having a clothing inspection. The applicant didn't have his equipment at the barracks at the specified time. The SSG informed the 2LT that he gave the applicant an order to have all his equipment at the communications shop at 1800 that day. The applicant did not comply with the SSG's order and the 2LT gave him a direct order to have all of his equipment ready for inspection on the next day for the SSG to inspect it. The applicant did not comply. The 2LT counseled the applicant again on Monday on disobeying orders of NCOs and officers and recommended to the commanding officer that he receive NJP. d. During the end of March, the applicant was late for duty on several occasions and each time the 2LT had counseling sessions with the applicant on his duties to the platoon and the Army. On or about the 1st of April, the applicant reported late for duty and was counseled by the 2LT and a Sergeant First Class. The next day the applicant was AWOL and upon his return was moved to another platoon. 23. On 4 April 1968, the applicant accepted NJP for disobeying a lawful order from a superior commissioned officer and failing to go to his appointed place of duty. His punishment included one grade reduction, suspended. He did not appeal his punishment. 24. On 25 April 1968, a Report for Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions was completed and states the applicant did not report for duty on 24 April 1968. No attempt to justify his absence was made by him. He had been gone for a period of 24 hours as of 0700 25 April 1968. Attempts to locate him had been made but to no avail. 25. An undated statement from the applicant's First Sergeant (1SG) states, in effect: a. The applicant worked in the message center for about one hundred and twenty some days. During this time, he had two accidents, while operating a military vehicle. One accident involved a civilian vehicle. The estimated cost of damages to the civilian vehicle was about $85. On both occasions, an officer had to go to the office of the provost marshal and sign for the applicant's release. b. During his tour of duty at the Message Center, there were gripes from his supervisors, concerning not his performance of duty but his time off, tardiness, and general appearance. On 24 April 1968, the applicant was reported absent. He remained absent until 27 April 1968. These habits could not be tolerated and the applicant was relieved from duty. c. The applicant had trouble with his supervisors in his new assignment in the communications platoon. His habits continued in an unacceptable manner. On 4 April 1968, he received NJP for misconduct. On 29 April 1968, he received NJP for AWOL. At the time of the statement, he was pending NJP for being AWOL. d. The applicant's efficiency was unsatisfactory due to his conduct. His personal affairs had been aired in the orderly room on numerous occasions. The company commander had several letters of indebtedness and a set of rings from a lady other than the applicant's wife, which indicated the morals of the applicant to be very questionable. To the 1SG's knowledge every attempt was made by the chain of command. The applicant displays a high disregard for regimentation, discipline, law, and order. He failed to work in harmony with his fellow Soldiers. He was in constant trouble with the military and civilian authorities. In the 1SG's opinion he should be eliminated from military service. 26. On 29 April 1968, the applicant accepted NJP for being AWOL from on or about 24 April 1968 to on or about 27 April 1968. His punishment included reduction to the grade of Private First Class and restriction and extra duty for 14 days. He did not appeal his punishment. 27. On 6 June 1968, the applicant accepted NJP for being AWOL from on or about 1 June 1968 to on or about 3 June 1968. His punishment included reduction to the grade of Private/E-2. He did not appeal his punishment. 28. On 6 June 1968, the applicant underwent a Report of Medical Examination, which shows he had no medical conditions and was qualified for separation. His report of Medical History shows he was in good health. 29. On 17 June 1968, a Report for Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions was completed stating flagging action submitted in April was completed; however, the applicant was being recommended for elimination. 30. On 18 June 1968, a neuropsychiatric report was completed on the applicant and states, in effect: a. There were no disqualifying mental defects sufficient to warrant disposition through medical channels. b. The applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to participate in board proceedings. c. The applicant was a 24 and a half year old, married Soldier who had been in the Army for seven years. Until approximately the previous two years he had a relatively good record and level of performance, and had attained the rank of E-5 and was on the verge of being considered for promotion to E-6, when he received a NJP at Fort Carson, was reduced to E-4, and went to Vietnam where he received another NJP. d. Just prior to receiving his first NJP, the applicant was stationed in Germany and returned home prior to completion of his tour and in the process began accumulating debts, which at the time had amounted to a level of $3,500. e. As he had found that he could not make significant gains in paying off his debt, he had sat down with his wife, thought over his situation, and came to the decision that he must get out of the military service one way or the other and, therefore, decided to arrange to get a discharge. f. He had deliberately gone AWOL on several occasions in order to be busted in rank and to convince his commanding officer that he was no longer of use to the military service and in need of being administratively discharged. g. In view of the fact that the applicant was an E-2, $3,500 in debt, and at a point where he no longer functioned effectively in the service, it would appear doubtful that significant rehabilitation could be achieved. h. The psychiatric examination revealed no medical or psychiatric basis for discharge from the Army via medical channels. Consequently, it was appropriate the applicant be handled administratively and that command, as rapidly as possible, make a decision regarding his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Discharge Unfitness and Unsuitability). 31. On 2 July 1968, the applicant's commander recommended the applicant be required to appear before a board of officers for the purposes of determining whether he should be discharged from the Army for Unfitness. 32. On 8 July 1968, the applicant submitted an election of rights where he acknowledged he had been notified of the pending separation action against him and had been advised of the basis for the contemplated action, understood his available rights, waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived personal appearance before a board of officers, elected not to submit statements in his own behalf, and waived representation by appointed counsel. 33. The applicant's chain of command recommended approval of a discharge for unfitness with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 34. On 6 September 1968, the appropriate approval authority accepted the waiver of a hearing before a board of officers, ordered the applicant's reduction to the rank of Private/E-1, waived the rehabilitation requirement, and approved his discharge for unfitness with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 35. On 9 September 1968, the applicant was discharged accordingly. He had completed 5 years, 6 months, and 25 days of active duty service this period with 2 years, and 1 day of prior honorable active duty service. He had lost time from 25 to 26 April 1968 and 1 to 2 June 1968. He was awarded or authorized the National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal with Bronze Service Star, and the Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device 1960. 36. The applicant is requesting an upgrade of his discharge stating he had undiagnosed PTSD at the time of his discharge. He didn't speak of his experiences in Vietnam for many years. a. The applicant provides documentation from the VA showing he suffers from PTSD due to his experiences in Vietnam. He also receives medical treatment from the VA for illnesses that occurred during the years he served honorably in the Army. b. The applicant's service record shows he had honorable service from 10 March 1961 to 10 March 1963. He accepted NJP on multiple occasions and received multiple letters of indebtedness, while in the service. c. At the time of the applicant's discharge, PTSD was largely 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 PTSD and its 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 PTSD 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 sexual assault or sexual harassment was unreported, or the mental health condition was not diagnosed until years later. d. 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. e. Army Regulation 635-212 (Discharge Unfitness and Unsuitability) provided that an individual was subject to separation for unfitness when one or more of six conditions existed. These included frequent incidents of discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. When separation for unfitness was warranted, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate. f. The ABCMR does not grant requests for upgrade of discharges solely for the purpose of making the applicant eligible for veterans' benefits; however, in reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, his service record, and his statements in light of the published guidance on equity, injustice, or clemency. g. Published guidance to the BCM/NRs clearly indicates that the guidance is not intended to interfere or impede on the Board's statutory independence. The Board will determine the relative weight of the action that led to the discharge and whether it supports relief or not. In reaching its determination, the Board shall consider the applicant's petition, available records and/or submitted documents in support of the petition. 37. MEDICAL REVIEW: a. The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting discharge upgrade contending that the misconduct leading to his Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge was due to PTSD he developed during his time in service. b. The Agency psychologist was asked by the ABCMR to review this request. Documentation reviewed includes the applicant’s completed DD149 and supporting documentation and his military separation packet. The VA electronic medical record, Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) was also reviewed. The military electronic medical record (AHLTA) was not reviewed as it was not in use during his time in service. No hard copy military medical records or civilian medical documentation was provided for review. c. Review of the applicant’s military documentation indicates that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 Mar 1961 and was honorably discharged on 10 Mar 1963. He subsequently reenlisted in the Regular Army on 11 Mar 1963. While on active duty, he was deployed overseas to France from 21 Nov 1961 - 09 Jul 1962, Germany from 12 Nov 1963 - 29 Jan 1965 and Vietnam from 29 Aug 1966 - 28 Aug 1967. During his time in service, his awards included the National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal w/Bronze Service Star and Vietnam Campaign Medal w/Device 1960. His job position was Field Wiremen. d. He received seven Article 15’s for disobeying an order from an NCO (06 May 1963), speeding in Germany (04 Sep 1964), absent from duty (11 Sep 1964), absent from unit (30 Mar 1966), not registering his POV (22 May 1966), disobeying order to display personal military equipment (23 Mar 1968), failure to report (04 Apr 1968), AWOL 24-27 Apr 1968, AWOL 01-03 Jun 1968. A Summary Court Martial, APO San Francisco (06 Mar 1967) determined he was not guilty for the charge of disobeying an order to remain inside the unit perimeter. A Mental Hygiene Consultation Service note, Fort Carson, CO (18 Jun 1968) indicated, “until approximately the past two years this man had a relatively good record and level of performance…when he received a DR at Fort Carson, Was busted to E-4, went to Vietnam where he received another Article 15…EM was stationed in Germany…began accumulating debts which at present have amounted to a level of $3500.00…come to the decision he must get out of the military service one way or the other…therefore deliberately gone AWOL on several occasions in order to be busted in rank and to convince his Commanding Officer that he was no longer of use to the military service.” The psychiatrist determined there was not a psychiatric disease and that he was cleared for any administrative action. A Discharge for Unfitness was initiated (02 Jul 1968) for indebtedness, MP blotter entries for car related citations and conduct (i.e. late for formations, three AWOL episodes and relations with a woman not his spouse including her claim he threatened her very life. He received an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge on 09 Sep 1968. e. The supporting documentation included his statement noting, “When I first got to Vietnam I was assigned to drive the lead vehicle in convoy. They Lieutenant would stand and fire his weapon at anyone that was coming out in front of us. When he needed backup I would fire my weapon and then proceed to run over anyone who was still in the road sometimes. This included women and children that the enemy was using for cover. It made me sick to do it but it was necessary for our survival. On one incident the Lieutenant was shot by someone in an ambush and I took him to medics where he later died…We were 5 miles from the DMZ and we were sleeping in bunkers to guard the compound. The enemy would come and attack almost nightly. I would have to shoot or be shot. I lost many friends in these nightly battles. I would turn and look after the firing stopped and see them shot in the chest and they would be dead or fatally wounded and I would stay with them while taking their last breath until the medics would come take them away. Still today there are times in the late night where I close my eyes and can hear them and see them dying all over again…The sound of the bombs and explosions haunt me still today as well as the screams of my dying friends. I admit I turned into an alcoholic to deal with my Vietnam experiences. I was full of anger when I returned home and would fight in bars almost every night. It cost me two failed marriages and a relationship with my first four children when they were young.” f. The VA electronic medical record, Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) did not indicate any service-connected disability(s). A Psychology Consult, Initial Evaluation for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (02 Apr 2021) indicated, “he was referred by BH provider for a combat stress evaluation…one of his biggest concerns is that if he is touched while sleeping, he has a tendency to come up swinging. Worries about his wife’s safety. Also notes significant emotional dysregulation as it relates to war related topics and triggers. Notes that he does not talk about the military and has no desire to. He reports that he continues to feel uncomfortable around loud noises and notes that politics frustrates him. Does not like to be in tight spaces where he cannot maneuver or escape…Vet was tear of the thought of talking about his war experience and noted that he was not open to talking about what he went through but that they killed a lot of people and did what they had to do.” The clinical psychologist maintained the diagnosis of PTSD. The Problem List included Insomnia Due to Other Mental Disorder; Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Chronic; Generalized Anxiety Disorder; Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Unspecified; Unspecified Dementia without Behavioral Disturbance; and Tobacco Dependence in Remission. g. Based on the available information and in accordance with the Liberal Consideration guidance, it is the opinion of the Agency psychologist that the applicant has a partially mitigating Behavioral Health condition, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). This applies in particular to his lateness or missed formations, FTRs and AWOL episodes during or following deployment to Vietnam, as well as financial indebtedness. As there is an association between Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and resistant, negative attitudes toward authority figures, there is a nexus between his symptoms and the lackluster, disobedient behavior he demonstrated. In addition, as there is an association between PTSD and avoidant behavior, there is a nexus between applicant’s diagnosis of PTSD and his AWOL episodes/FTRs/neglectful performance from his unit and required duty functions, including mismanagement of financial affairs and POV requirements, during and after his service in Vietnam. Chronological review of his military career indicates a dramatic change in the applicant’s motivation, temperament and level of instability occurred most notably during and after his deployment to Vietnam. Such a radical change in behavior is consistent with the behavioral changes seen in soldiers who develop PTSD in a combat environment. However, his romantic involvement, including threats, with a woman other than his wife is not part of the natural history or sequelae of PTSD and, as such, is not mitigated under Liberal Consideration. His misconduct prior to his deployment to Vietnam (i.e. disobeying an NCO order, speeding in Germany, absence from duty and unit, and not registering his POV is also not mitigated, as it occurred prior to the traumatizing combat experiences in Vietnam. h. Regarding the Kurta questions, the applicant did have a condition that may excuse or mitigate the discharge (i.e. Posttraumatic Stress Disorder). The PTSD condition did exist and the traumatic events occurred during military service. Finally, the PTSD condition actually does excuse or mitigate the discharge – PTSD partially mitigates for his offenses, particularly lateness or missed formations, AWOL episodes during or following deployment to Vietnam, and financial indebtedness. However, PTSD does not mitigate for misconduct prior to Vietnam, as well as his involvement, including threatening statements, with a woman other than his wife. Consideration of a discharge upgrade is suggested. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, to include the DoD guidance on liberal consideration when reviewing discharge upgrade requests, the Board determined relief was not warranted. The applicant’s contentions, the military record, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. Based upon the pattern of misconduct in the record, some of which was prior to his Vietnam service causing the PTSD, and the findings of the medical advisor that only partial mitigation was warranted, the Board concluded there as insufficient evidence of an error or injustice warranting a change to the applicant’s characterization of service. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :X :X :X DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. 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. Title 10, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within three 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 three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), prescribes policies and procedures for enlisted administrative separations. a. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 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 as otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly appropriate. 3. Army Regulation 635-212 (Discharge Unfitness and Unsuitability) provided that an individual was subject to separation for unfitness when one or more of six conditions existed. These included frequent incidents of discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. When separation for unfitness was warranted, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate. 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 UOTHC and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service. 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; 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 to 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 DRBs and 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) AR20220001814 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20220001814 1