MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:	 

	BOARD DATE:            23 November 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:	AR1999022930

	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:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		Member	
	Mr. Orville W. Troesch, 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 he was and is suffering from PTSD and that this condition is a mitigating factor in the offences that led to his discharge.

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 March 1988 (COPY ATTACHED).  The applicant’s interim request was administratively closed.

The applicant submitted the contention that his misconduct was a manifestation of PTSD with his administratively closed application of 16 September 1994.  The consideration of PTSD is an issue that was not previously addressed, therefore, it warrants review by the Board.

The applicant’s current submission includes information on his Agent Orange Payment Program and Social Security Administration claim. 

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.

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 current submission, although not previously reviewed by the Board, has no relationship to the request for an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge. 

2.  The applicant has not submitted any evidence that he is suffering from PTSD nor that this condition is attributed to his period of service.

3.  Further, 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.

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

___sac__  __gdp___  ___owt___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999022930	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991123	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	 UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19700523	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A50.00	
BOARD DECISION		
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES        1.	A93.13	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.