MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            10 December 1998                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12510

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

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. James M. Alward		Member	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  He had almost 9 years of honorable service, to include two full combat tours in Vietnam.  He found it difficult to adjust to a peacetime Army.  He is currently being treated for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and now realizes that the behavior which caused his general discharge was due in part from his PTSD.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 April 1965.  He served two full tours in Vietnam where his principal duties were gas turbine general repairman and engineer equipment repairman, respectively.  He completed his last tour on      16 August 1971.

Prior to his return from Vietnam the second time, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on three occasions for violating a lawful general regulation (improperly backing up his vehicle); speeding; and failing to go to his appointed place of duty, respectively.

Between May 1973 and January 1974, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on five occasions for offenses such as failing to go to his appointed place of duty, being absent without leave, and speeding.

On 11 January 1974, discharge proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, unsuitability, were initiated.  

On 11 January 1974, the applicant waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived personal appearance before such a board, did submit a statement in his own behalf and waived representation by counsel.  In his statement, he requested a fully honorable discharge based upon his previous eight years of honorable service, his two tours in Vietnam and his record of only minor infractions of military rules and regulations.  His commanders considered his statement and still recommended a general discharge.

On 5 February 1974, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant receive a general discharge.

A separation physical examination is not available.

On 12 February 1974, the applicant was discharged with a general under honorable conditions discharge, in pay grade E-2, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13.  He had completed 8 years, 9 months and        7 days of creditable active service and had 7 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  At the time, Chapter 13 contained the policy and outlined the procedures for separating an individual for unsuitability when it was clearly established that it was unlikely that he would develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.

On 10 March 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The characterization of his discharge as general under honorable conditions was appropriate considering his numerous, though minor, infractions of military discipline.  There is no evidence in the records and he has not supplied any to show that PTSD was the cause of his behavior.

3.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

JHL_____  JMA_____  SK______  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12510	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19981210	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	740212	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .635-200, chapter 13  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A40.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.