MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           14 July 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC96-10674A
				   AR1999016551

	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. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Member	
	Mr. John Saputo		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 his earlier application to correct his records by upgrading his general discharge under the Special Discharge review Project. 

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  In effect, that a report by a treating psychologist shows that the applicant was suffering from acute stress disorder (ASD) and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) prior to the discharge, that the behavior that led to the discharge were symptoms of his psychological problems and that the diagnosis of anti-social personality was used as an excuse to discharge the applicant.  Applicant and counsel submit a detained history and opinion from a VA psychologist and copies of some of the literature cited by the psychologist.  Counsel also contends that the chaplain who interviewed the applicant prior to his discharge did not understand his cultural dynamics as a Native American and misquoted him.  
   
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memoranda prepared to reflect the Board's previous considerations of the case on 25 February 1998 (COPY ATTACHED).

The psychologist records the applicant’s family history as very poor and deprived having been raised by alcoholic abuse Native American father and a mother who inculcated the applicant with feelings of shame, in part because she was of mixed-race.  He relates that testing done a year after the applicant’s discharge at age (26) established his IQ at 98-100, and a mental maturity of 16.  He is considered to have a developmental disorder which was present upon entering the service.  

The psychologist finds fault with the “psychiatric” evaluation and notes that there is no record of any “medical or clinical examinations performed and no indications of the writers professional qualifications.  He also cites an extract from the Army Discharge Review Board SOP that talks about the effect of dissension in American society over the Vietnam War and the possibility that an individual’s misconduct and decisions may have been effected by ideological considerations.  This is identified as the Vietnam Syndrome; or Post Traumatic  War Neurosis.   He relates the applicant’s views of the war, his impressions of Vietnam and of his treatment by the military and concludes that his behavior was consistent with ASD and PTSD.  Finally he outlines the diagnostic criteria for antisocial personality.  He notes that the applicant had served well for several years whereas someone with an anti-social personality would have manifested such behaviors from the beginning and even before his enlistment.  He 

concludes that the diagnosis was in error.  The psychologist reports that the applicant’s behavior was consistent with a diagnosis of ASD/PTSD/PVS/ MDD (major depressive disorder) and co-morbid alcohol abuse and dependency.

The literature reviewed by the psychologist and provided to the Board includes the report of the Matsunaga Vietnam Veterans Project prepared by the National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and National Center for American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research.

The applicant’s record contains a 9 March 1995 report of psychiatric evaluation that begins: “IMPRESSION;  Detailed psychiatric study reveals that: This man was and is mentally responsible both to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.  This man has the mental capacity to understand and participate in the board proceedings. ” It is signed by an individual whose signature block reads “Captain, MC,  Psychiatrist”

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 the absence of evidence that at the time of the discharge or of the behavior that led to the discharge the applicant was so impaired by mental, emotional, psychological or psychiatric problems as to be unable to tell right from wrong and adhere to the right, the current diagnoses do nothing to demonstrate an injustice in the discharge.  In this case a qualified psychiatrist determined that to specifically not be the case.

2.  The effort to discredit the in-service diagnosis of anti-social personality is misplaced.  That diagnosis was not “used as a excuse to discharge the applicant.”  The applicant was discharged because of his misconduct and specifically at his own request so that he could escape the some of the immediate consequence of his behavior.  The report of psychiatric evaluation does not need justification or explanations to be accepted at face value nor does a Medical Corps psychiatrist have to include his curriculum vita in order to be given credence some 40 years later.

3. While the psychologist views the applicant’s years of successful service as evidence that the diagnosis of anti-social personality was wrong.  The Board finds that it is convincing evidence of a capacity for honorable service for so long as the applicant chose to comport himself in a soldierly manner.  

4. The applicant served in Vietnam from 9 March 1964 to 27 May 1964, before the on-set of major United States combatant activities and he was discharged in 
mid-June 1965 before opposition to the Vietnam war became widespread.

5. Deprived backgrounds, personal problems, chemical addictions, emotional problems and personality disorders can be and generally are viewed by the members of the as mitigating circumstances.  The incidence of alcohol addiction among Native Americans who drink is well documented, but statistics and genetics notwithstanding, addicts apparently must accept responsibility for their behavior in order to sustain recovery.   In this case, the applicant’s service was considerable, but failing evidence that the applicant has and is addressing his problems and functioning as contributing member of his community no mitigation derives from those problems, regardless of what diagnoses is attached to them. 

6.  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.

7.  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

___SAC_  ___EMW_  ___JS___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC96-10674A
AR1999016551	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED		
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19650618	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A94.13	
2.	A93.07	
3.	A93.19	
4.		
5.		
6.