MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:	 

	BOARD DATE:             4 November 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:	AR1999014744

	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	
	Mr. Gerald E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.		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:  Reconsideration of his previous application to correct his records by upgrading his discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his recruiter lied and falsely entered a guarantee for infantry not for clerk.  Additionally, when he brought this to the attention of authorities he was told that there was no indication of any such promise and that since he volunteered he would have to serve in that capacity.  The applicant contends that he was coerced into signing the request for a separation in lieu of court-martial.  The applicant also contends that he is suffering from several psychological or psychiatric conditions, including post traumatic stress disorder, for which he was not afforded any evaluation or assistance while on active duty.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  The applicant’s case is reopened in accordance with the Army Board for Correction of Military Records Reconsideration Project (ABCMR-RP) criteria.  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 16 May 1990 (COPY ATTACHED).  The applicant’s interim request was administratively closed.

The applicant submits a lengthy statement through both his Senator and Congressman outlining his contentions and raising the issue of his suffering from an undiagnosed mental condition at the time of his discharge.  This constitutes new argument warranting referral to the Board.

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.

Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 1-2, provides that a soldier who is charged with an offense or is under investigation for an offense for which he could be dismissed or given a punitive discharge may not be referred for disability processing.  However, if the officer exercising appropriate court-martial jurisdiction dismisses the charge or refers it for trial to a court-martial which cannot adjudge such a sentence, the case may be referred for disability processing.  When forwarded, the records of such a case must contain a copy of the action signed by the court-martial authority who made the decision. 

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.  The applicant’s records are devoid of any indication that he was suffering from a mental, physical, psychiatric or psychological condition at the time of the commission of the offences that lead to his discharge.  Nor has he submitted any evidence that any such condition that he may currently be suffering from was in existence at the time of his discharge.

2.  Absent convincing evidence that, at the time of the discharge or the behavior that led to the discharge, the applicant was so impaired by psychiatric, psychological, mental, or emotional problems that he could not both tell right from wrong and adhere to the right, the PTSD issue does nothing to demonstrate an error or an injustice in the discharge.

3.  The applicant has submitted no evidence that he was guaranteed an MOS other than that which appears on his enlistment contract nor that he was coerced into requesting a discharge in lieu of going to court-martial.

4.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

5.  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

__EB___  ____AAO_  __HOF__  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999014744	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991104	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19740205	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	UD 3-0	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES        1.	A91.21	
2.	A99.09	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.