PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           9 February 2000                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999025884

	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. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Deborah S. Jacobs		Member	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter 		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.   The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous appeal to correct his records by upgrading his discharge.

3.  He states, in effect, that he should have received an honorable discharge because his AWOLs were caused by post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), from which he still suffers.   He describes his evacuation from Vietnam for malaria, the reoccurring nightmares that started while he was still in the hospital and the intrusive thoughts and feelings of isolation that developed at his next duty station.  He describes being on guard duty and then coming out of a blackout several days later in a town 30 miles from the base.  He returned, was reduced to the rank of private and sent back to duty.  He wanted to go back to Vietnam but was not allowed to do so.  He was AWOL and went back three times before he was discharged.  He states “For more than twenty years after that my life was a nightmare – an odyssey of alcoholism, of guilt and self-blame because I had let my country down. ”  He relates that he does not blame anyone but believes that if his mind had not been sick he might have been able to see his duty more clearly.  His life has changed since 1989 and each day he strives “to be the human being that my fallen comrades would expect me to be.”

4.  Counsel concurs in the applicant's presentation and requests that all reasonable doubt be resolved in the applicant's favor by the granting of a general discharge.  Counsel also states that the applicant freely admits that he was AWOL but feels that the Army could have offered him rehabilitation.  They submit several “letters of endorsement” that discuss the applicant’s addiction to alcohol and post-service adjustment and conduct.  

5.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records that were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 2 November 1988.

6.  The original request was denied because, after examining the entire case, the Board concluded that there was insufficient reason to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it would have waived the 3 year time limit.  The Board has never denied an application simply because it was not submitted within the required time.
The PTSD issue was considered, however alcohol addiction and post service conduct and adjustment are new arguments that requires Board consideration. 

7.  A clergyman writes that the applicant was addicted to alcohol for many years. He observes that the applicant was quite young and had no drinking experience prior to Vietnam.  He reports that the applicant has been living a productive life without alcohol for the past five years.

8.  In an undated letter to his mother the applicant related that he had been wounded by an outgoing mortar round.  However, he hoped his mother never became bitter about his being in Vietnam because he believed that those protesting the U.S. involvement were misguided and that the nation’s commitment to Vietnam was necessary and just and that was service a privilege.

9.  A letter from an individual, who became acquainted with the applicant through work, states that he is well liked and helpful to others in the community.  He suffers from his wartime experiences and physical problems.  He believes that the applicant’s discharge should be upgraded so that he can receive benefits.  

10.  A former supervisor relates that, when the applicant applied for a job in 1991, he was open and honest about his former problems.  He states that the applicant now has pride in his work, in himself and in his Vietnam service. This individual believes that the applicant should be eligible for VA benefits.

11.  Another individual states that the applicant is selfless, that he helps people and expects nothing in return.  He has unnecessarily punished himself for things that were not his fault and deserves to have his discharge upgraded.

12.  A neighbor, who describes herself as a 12-year employee of a substance abuse treatment facility, states that she knows the applicant to have been drug free for 5 years.  Although he has suffered personally and financially, even in recovery, he has grown and changed.

13.  The applicant’s brother-in-law states that he knows about the applicant’s problems and that change has not been easy for him but that the applicant has worked hard to change.  He has been a good husband and provider.

14.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 (report of separation) indicates that his authorized awards include the Air Medal and the Combat Infantryman Badge.  He had 2 years 7 months and 28 days of creditable service.

15.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 6a(1) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

16.  An FBI records check reveals that the applicant’s last reported arrest was in 1982.  Between his discharge and 1982 he was arrested 12 times.  At least seven of these were for offenses clearly associated with chemical addiction. 

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge was authorized and normally considered appropriate to the circumstances of the applicant's record of misconduct.
 
2.  However, the applicant’s combat service, his struggles to recover from alcoholism, and his more recent post-service conduct and adjustment are all mitigating factors that now render the discharge unjust.

3.  Nevertheless, although both alcoholism and PTSD may mitigate behavior because both tend to distort reality and hinder impulse control, such conditions are not excuses for misconduct.  The applicant’s overall record of misconduct as precludes the granting of an honorable discharge.  Characterization of his service as having been served under honorable conditions and issuance of a general discharge are appropriate.

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

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by voiding the 25 July 1968 undesirable discharge currently held by the individual concerned and by issuing him a general discharge under honorable conditions.   

BOARD VOTE:

__RVO__  __DSJ___  __CJS__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		__Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.____________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

	AR1999025584	
		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000209	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19690625	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	A50.00	
BOARD DECISION	GD	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A92.22	
2.	A93.22	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.