PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:            6 January 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC89-05264B
			              AR1998014517

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	M r. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas D. Howard, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Member	
	Mr. Curtis W. Barbee		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2. In response to the Board’s Reconsideration Project the applicant requests reconsideration of his previous application to correct his records by upgrading his discharge.

3.  The applicant contends, in effect, that various representatives have submitted requests in his behalf to the wrong agencies or have submitted the wrong information.  He avers that he was issued the wrong discharge because his combat service in Vietnam required an honorable discharge.  He contends that he was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at the time of the AWOL that led to his discharge.

4.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 6 December 1989.  Along with that application the applicant submitted evidence that his mother was ill when he returned home on leave.  He also submitted letters from supporters indicating that he is now a good citizen and family man and a trusted friend.  (A DD Form 215 , Correction to DD Form 215 has been issued correctly listing his awards except that he is entitled to four bronze service stars for wear on the Vietnam Service Medal.)

5.  The contention that his representatives submitted information improperly (a congressman did request the National Personnel Records Center to review his discharge) and that he was suffering from PTSD constitute new arguments that require Board consideration. 

6.  The discharge processing package indicates that the general court-martial convening authority (GCMA) who approved the applicant’s request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court martial and directed separation with an undesirable discharge and reduction to the lowest pay grade was not apprised of the of the fact that the applicant was a combat veteran, who had been wounded in action, awarded personal decorations and completed a tour of duty in Vietnam, extended his tour of duty in Vietnam and then failed to return from his authorized 30 days special leave because of family problems.  The discharge package made it appear as if the applicant was simply AWOL from a unit in Vietnam. 

7.  On 4 April 1977 the Department of Defense (DOD) directed the Services to review all less than fully honorable administrative discharges issued between 4 August 1964 and 28 March 1973.  This program, known as the DOD Discharge Review Program (Special) (SDRP) required, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, that a discharge upgrade to either honorable or general be issued in the case of any individual who had either completed a normal tour of duty in Southeast Asia, been wounded in action, been awarded a military decoration other than a service medal, had received an honorable discharge from a previous period of service, or had a record of satisfactory military service of 24 months prior to discharge.  Consideration of other factors, including possible personal problems which may have contributed to the acts which led to the discharge, and a record of good citizenship since the time of discharge, would also be considered upon application by the individual.

8.  In October 1978, Public Law 95-126 was enacted.  This legislation denied Veterans Administration (VA) benefits to any former service member who had been AWOL for more than 180 consecutive days, or who had been classified as a deserter or a conscientious objector.  The DOD was required to establish historically consistent, uniform standards for discharge reviews.  Reconsideration using these uniform standards was required for all discharges previously upgraded under the SDRP and certain other programs was required.  Individuals whose SDRP upgrades were not affirmed upon review under these historically consistent uniform standards were not entitled to VA benefits, unless they had been entitled to such benefits before their SDRP review.

9.  PTSD, an anxiety disorder, was not recognized as a psychiatric disorder until 1980 with the publishing of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) III.  The condition is described in the current DSM IV, pages 424 through 427.  While PTSD has only been categorized by psychiatrists as a distinct diagnosis since 1980, it has, as early as the Civil War, been described in psychological literature, variously labeled as shell shock, soldier's heart, effect syndrome, combat fatigue and traumatic neurosis.  During the period of time in question, similar psychiatric symptomatology was categorized as hysterical neurosis.  Although the current label of PTSD is of rather recent acceptance, the idea that catastrophes and tragedies can result in persistent emotional and psychological symptoms is common even among the lay public.  While PTSD was not recognized as a specific illness at the time of the applicant's separation from the service, the fact that an individual might not be fit for further military service because of psychosis, psychoneurosis, or neurological disorders was outlined in Army Regulation 40-501 which was in effect at the time of his separation.  The Army established standards and procedures for determining fitness for retention and utilized those procedures and standards in evaluating individuals at that time.  The specific diagnostic label given to an individual's condition a decade or more after his discharge from the service may change, but any change does not call into question the application of then existing fitness standards.

10.  During the processing of this case the FBI indicated that the applicant had no known arrest record.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Absent evidence that at the time of the offense that led to the discharge or of the discharge processing that the applicant was so incapacitated by mental or emotional problems so severe that he could not both tell right from wrong and adhere to the right, the PTSD contention does nothing to demonstrate an error or injustice in the discharge.

2.  However, the fact that the GCMA who approved the applicant’s Chapter 10 request was not clearly informed of the applicant’s status as a wounded, decorated, combat veteran did create an injustice.  

3.  Furthermore, that injustice was compounded when the Army failed to review his discharge under the provisions of the SDRP as it was required to do.  Such a review would have, by regulation, resulted in an upgrade in of his discharge to at least a general discharge under the SDRP.  That process would have also alerted the applicant to the further possibility of discharge review under the historically consistent uniform standards required by Public Law 95-126.  It is highly unlikely that a discharge review conducted under those standards would have resulted in anything less that a normal general discharge.

4.  The applicant’s discharge should be upgraded to a general discharge under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 and his rank should be restored to specialist (E-4).  Notwithstanding the mitigation arising from his status as a wounded, decorated combat veteran, his family and personal problems and his post-service adjustment and conduct, the seriousness of the offense which led to the discharge (as evidenced by 116 days lost time) is too serious as to warrant the award of an honorable discharge.

5.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 should reflect all of his authorized awards. 

6.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would rectify an injustice by correcting  the applicant’s records as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:

a.  by  voiding the undesirable discharge dated 2 February 1970 currently held by the individual concerned;

b.  by granting him a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10; 

c.  by restoring his rank to specialist (E-4); and 

d.  by issuing him a new DD form 214 indicating that, in addition to the authorized awards currently listed on his DD Forms 214 and 215, the applicant is entitled to the Vietnam Service Medal with four bronze service stars.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

__TDH__  __LLS___  __CWB__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

INDEX

CASE ID	AC89-05264B
AR1998014517	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990106	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19700202	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Ch 10. . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	 	
BOARD DECISION	Modify	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	883	
2.	789	
3.	800	
4.	794	
5.		
6.		

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON