IN THE CASE OF:  
 
  BOARD DATE:  31 August 2023 
 
  DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20230000376 
 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS:  An upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable discharge.  
 
APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:   
 
• DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) with self-authored statement 

• Service Record including: DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record), treatment records, and DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), for the period ending 30 March 1972 

• Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) case file 

• Four Character Letters 

• Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Ratings Decision Letters, dated 6 May and 9 May 2022 

• VA Summary of Treatment Letters, dated 8 September and 12 September 2022 


 
FACTS:   
 
1.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.  
 
2.  The applicant states, in effect: 
 
a.  He initially had a difficult time adjusting to military life. He was held over for an extended period after basic training, subjected to harsh physical and mental treatment from drill sergeants, and placed on numerous never-ending details (kitchen patrol, etc.). Seeing new trainees come and go made him angry. Feeling that he was being treated unfairly, he went absent without leave (AWOL) after not being able to take it anymore.  
 
b.  Upon his return and completion of training he was sent to the Republic of Vietnam (RVN). He was involved in a claymore accident when a claymore went off and severely injured him (in the chest) and a battle buddy. They were not evacuated for 
hours due to the hostile area. After treatment he was sent back to his unit in a holding status and placed on details. However, he was more mentally and physically challenged, felt insecure, short-tempered, and apprehensive and he went AWOL to escape the environment. When he returned, he was placed in the stockade. He was pushed around by guys that made him uncomfortable, and he could not sleep. He did not know he had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at the time.  
 
c.  After separating he was depressed about not being able to complete his service term. He was unable to adjust to the civilian life he once knew. He continues to have trouble with family, work, and personal relationships. He still has shrapnel in his chest from the claymore incident, which prevents him from getting magnetic resonance images. He did not receive a Purple Heart for being injured in the RVN and still has a hard time with his mood and memory. Caring for his mother for years helped a little. He is seeking help from the VA for PTSD and hopes to improve his life with an upgrade. He should get an upgrade to honorable because he was in a combat zone and injured. He also included a list of medications as part of his statement.  
 
3.  The applicant’s available military records are very limited. However, his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record), shows the following:   
 
• on 30 December 1968, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a 3-year service obligation 

• he was reported AWOL from his training unit at Fort Ord, CA on 23 April 1969 until 29 August 1969 

• he was again reported AWOL from his training unit at Fort Ord, CA on 2 October 1969 until 5 October 1969 

• he was placed in pretrial confinement on 8 October 1969 until 19 October 1969 

• he was tried at a summary court-martial on 20 October 1969 and confined until 21 October 1969 


 
4.  On 27 October 1969, upon completion of training and award of military occupational specialty 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman), he was assigned to Fort Benning, GA to complete the basic airborne course. However, he was permanently disqualified on 5 January 1970. He was assigned to the RVN and arrived on 14 February 1970.  
 
5.  A Standard Form 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care) dated 25 April 1970, shows he was wounded on the left anterior shoulder on 24 April 1970, after a claymore mine was placed in the wrong direction and detonated. The Clinical Record Cover Sheet shows he was admitted to the 91st Evacuation Hospital on 25 April 1970 for an open penetrating wound, left axilla with no nerve or artery involvement, and returned to duty on 6 May 1970. The form also notes the facility did not award the Purple Heart.  
 
6.  A second DA Form 8-275-3 shows on 23 July 1970 he was admitted for the same injury with a diagnosis of contracture of the left elbow and transferred to a higher echelon of care at the 249th General Hospital on 27 July 1970.  
 
7.  A third DA Form 8-275-3 shows on 29 July 1970 he arrived and was further transferred to U.S. Army Hospital, Fort Ord, CA on 16 August 1970 with an added diagnosis of left brachial plexus contusion needing specialized orthopedic treatment.  
 
8.  His DA Form 20 shows he was reported AWOL: 
 
• from on or about 1 September 1970 to 3 September 1970 

• from on or about 5 October 1970 to 2 November 1970 

• on or about 3 November 1970 was dropped from the unit rolls  


 
9.  Special Orders Number 42 Extract, issued by U.S. Army Training Center, Infantry and Fort Ord, CA on 11 February 1971, show he was returned to military control on 8 February 1971 after being AWOL from the Medical Holding Company, Fort Ord, CA.  
 
10.  Special Orders Number 62 Extract, 3 March 1972, issued by U.S. Army Training Center, Infantry and Fort Ord, CA, show he was returned to military control on 28 February 1972 after being AWOL from the U.S. Army Personnel Control Facility, Fort Ord, CA.  
 
11.  On 6 March 1972, he underwent a separation examination and reported a history of fragmentation wound to his left shoulder but was in good health. The examining physician found him qualified for separation.  
 
12.  The applicant's record is void of a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge processing. However, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 30 March 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 10, with separation program number 246 (for the good of the service). He was separated in the lowest enlisted grade, with an UOTHC characterization of service. He was credited with completing 1 year, 6 months, and 13 days of net active service this period, with 5 months and 23 days in the RVN, and 618 days of lost time. He was awarded or authorized the National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, Combat Infantry Badge, and two marksmanship badges. His DD Form 214 does not show award of the Purple Heart.  
 
13.  The issuance of a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, required the applicant to have requested from the Army – voluntarily, willingly, and in writing – discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. It is presumed that all requirements of law and regulation were met, and the rights of the applicant were fully 
protected throughout the separation process. The applicant has provided no evidence that would indicate the contrary.  
 
14.  On 3 December 1975, the ADRB reviewed the applicant’s petition for an upgrade of his discharge. After careful consideration, the ADRB determined his discharge was proper and equitable and denied his request for relief. 
 
15.  The applicant provides the following for consideration:  
 
• his service and treatment record 

• ADRB packet and denial letter 

• four support letters attesting to his character; how he cared for his mother before she died; being thoughtful, considerate, and helpful despite having had cancer, heart bypass surgery, hip replacement, and PTSD; he is short tempered since his discharge and hard to be friends with because he needs stronger medications  

• VA Rating Decision, which shows he was granted service connection for treatment purposes only for PTSD, scars, shrapnel wounds and five other conditions on 6 May 2022 

• two VA Psychologist letters summarizing his treatment for PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder 


 
16.  In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition, arguments and assertions, and service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency guidance.  
 
17.  MEDICAL REVIEW: 
 
    a.  Background: The applicant is requesting an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable discharge. The applicant asserts PTSD as a mitigating factor in his discharge.  
    b.  What is available of the specific facts and circumstances of the case can be found in the ABCMR Record of Proceedings (ROP), however it was noted that the military records available are very limited. Below is a summary of information pertinent to this advisory:  
• The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 December 1968.  

• He was reported AWOL, from his training unit at Fort Ord, CA on 23 April 1969 until 29 August 1969, and again 2 October 1969 until 5 October 1969. He was placed in pretrial confinement on 8 October 1969 until 19 October 1969. He was tried at a summary court-martial on 20 October 1969 and confined until 21 October 1969 

• He was assigned to RVN and arrived 14 February 1970. He was wounded 25 April 1970. He arrived in the US for treatment 16 August 1970 


• He was reported AWOL from on or about 1 September 1970 to 3 September 1970, from on or about 5 October 1970 to 2 November 1970, and from on or about 3 November 1970 and was dropped from the unit rolls. He was returned to military control on 8 February 1971. 

• It’s unclear when he went AWOL again, but he’s listed as DFR on 10 March 1971 and orders published 3 March 1972 show he was returned to military control on 28 February 1972.  

• HIS RECORD IS VOID OF A SEPARATION PACKET.  

• He was discharged on 30 March 1972, under AR 635-200, Chapter 10 - in lieu of trial by court-martial, with an UOTHC characterization of service.  

• On 3 December 1975, the ADRB determined his discharge was proper and equitable and denied his request for relief. 


 
c.  Review of Available Records Including Medical: 
The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Behavioral Health (BH) Advisor reviewed this case. Documentation reviewed included the applicant’s completed DD Form 149, his ABCMR Record of Proceedings (ROP), self-authored statement, four character letters, VA Ratings Decision Letters, VA Summary of Treatment Letters, and some documents from his service record and separation. The VA electronic medical record and DoD health record were reviewed through Joint Longitudinal View (JLV). Lack of citation or discussion in this section should not be interpreted as lack of consideration.  
The applicant admits he had a difficult time adjusting to military life, felt he was being treated unfairly, and had several AWOLs prior to his deployment to the Republic of Vietnam (RVN). He was severely injured in a claymore accident while deployed (in the chest). Once treated he was sent back but reports feeling mentally and physically challenged, insecure, short tempered and apprehensive. He noted he went AWOL again and when he returned, he was placed in the stockade where he also struggled. He noted feeling depressed because he couldn’t serve the rest of his term. He also asserts that he did not know it then, but he had PTSD. He reported that he has continued to struggle (see application and self-authored statement for additional details).   
    d.  There are no electronic health records (EHR) from his time in service (given the years he served). In his supporting documents there are several Report of Medical History and Report of Medical Examinations. His enlistment medical exam 18 December 1968 did not indicate any psychiatric or neurologic concerns. A profile supplied form 7 May 1970 has 1 listed for S (psychiatric). On 6 March 1972, he underwent a separation examination and reported a history of fragmentation wound to his left shoulder but was in good health. No neurologic or psychiatric conditions were listed. The examining physician found him qualified for separation. The applicant did not supply any other medical or mental health records from his periods of service.  
    e.  Per review of the applicant’s EHR, he first engaged with the VA in 2020 and began engaging in mental health care in 2021. The characterization of his discharge likely made the applicant ineligible for most services until he began the service connection process. The applicant has been service connected, for treatment purposes only, for PTSD with a rating decision date of 6 May 2022. His compensation and pension (C&P) evaluation was not available for review. Applicant has engaged in therapy and medication management consistently since starting care. The applicant also included two VA provider letters summarizing his treatment. In a letter dated 8 September 2022 from his psychologist, significant symptoms of PTSD were summarized, as well as the ongoing impact of his PTSD on his functioning. His psychiatric nurse practitioner, on 12 September 2022, also noted the applicant being diagnosed with PTSD and major depressive disorder (MDD) and noted medication has appeared to be helping treat his symptoms.  
 
    f.  It is the opinion of the ARBA BH Advisor that there is minimal evidence, beyond self-report, to indicate the applicant had a mitigating condition during his time in service. However, the applicant has since been service connected for PTSD and has consistently reported deployment related trauma and symptoms throughout his engagements with treatment. Per Liberal Consideration guidance, the applicant’s contention is sufficient to warrant the Board’s consideration. 
 
Kurta Questions: 
 
    (1)  Does any evidence state that the applicant had a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate a discharge? Yes. The applicant asserts PTSD as a mitigating factor.  
 
    (2)  Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes, the applicant asserts the PTSD and depression were present during his time in service.   
 
    (3)  Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The applicant asserts mitigation due to PTSD. His medical records from his time in service do not indicate a mental health concern but do corroborate that the applicant was severely injured while in Vietnam. The applicant asserts that his mental health was a contributing factor in why he went AWOL after his injury. It appears as likely as not that PTSD was a mitigating factor in his misconduct. However, the applicant also went AWOL numerous times before his deployment to RVN, however those incidents apparently did not lead to discharge as they occurred years before. Of note, while this advisor is aware the whole separation packet is not available, it is evident that the applicant was intermittently, yet fairly consistently, AWOL up until he was discharged. His separation, therefore, is presumed to be only related to the AWOL charges as there is no evidence of any other type of misconduct in his record, and that is where the opine 
will focus. AWOL can be an avoidance behavior, consistent with the natural history and sequalae of several mental health conditions, including PTSD and depression. There is a nexus between PTSD and depression and the misconduct that led to his separation. Hence, the basis for separation is mitigated and an upgrade is recommended.   
 
BOARD DISCUSSION: 
 
1.  The Board carefully considered the applicant's request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, a medical review, and published Department of Defense guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant's statement, his record of service to include deployment, the frequency and nature of his misconduct, and the reason for his separation. The Board considered the applicant's PTSD claim and the review and conclusions of the ARBA BH Advisor.  
 
2.  The Board concurred with the conclusion of the medical advising official regarding his misconduct being mitigated by PTSD.  Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined partial relief is appropriate, and the applicant’s character of service should be changed to under honorable conditions (general). 
 
2.   
 
BOARD VOTE: 
 
Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 
 
: : : GRANT FULL RELIEF 
 
xx: xx: xx: GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 
 
: : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING 
 
: : : DENY APPLICATION 
 
 
  
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 
 
1.  The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing his DD Form 214 to show his character of service as under honorable conditions (general). 
 
2.  The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to an honorable character of service. 

  9/12/2023

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, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the 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.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1556, provides the Secretary of the Army shall ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by ARBA is provided a copy of all correspondence and communications, including summaries of verbal communications, with any agencies or persons external to agency or board, or a member of the staff of the agency or Board, that directly pertains to or has material effect on the applicant's case, except as authorized by statute.  
 
3.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The version in effect at the time provided that:  
 
a.  An honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and 
performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  
 
b.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  
 
c.  Chapter 10 provided that a member who had committed an offense or offenses, for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge, could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request could be submitted at any time after charges had been preferred and must have included the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a UOTHC discharge was normally considered appropriate.  
 
4.  On 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRB) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NR) 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, Boards 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//