PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           3 May 2000        
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000036018

	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.  

	Ms. McKim-Spilker		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mr. John H. Kern		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		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, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions (GD).

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he had open access to illegal drugs and prescription medicine during his tour of duty in Vietnam; that he used these drugs to assist him in dealing with his fear; that at his subsequent assignment he used hashish, marijuana, and Valium and he performed well enough as long as there was no mention of Vietnam; that his company commander in Germany believed he had an attitude problem because he was a Vietnam veteran; that he has been under psychiatric care since 1976 and diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) since 1991; that he has never fit back into society and has served, and is currently serving, time in prison.  He has submitted a statement from his psychiatrist and documents from friends and family attesting to his changed character after service in Vietnam.   

4.  The counsel states, in effect, that the applicant’s experiences in Vietnam and their effect on him were the cause of his disciplinary record in Germany; that he completed a satisfactory tour of duty in Vietnam, participated in 4 counteroffenses, and was unjustly separated from the Army 4 days prior to his normal ETS date; that the offenses he was charged with were not very serious; and, that as a matter of equity, it is not inappropriate to upgrade his discharge.

5.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted on 12 February 1968 in the Regular Army (RA) for a period of 3 years unassigned.  He successfully completed basic combat training at Fort Lewis, Washington, and advanced individual training (AIT) in military occupational specialty (MOS) 64A (Light Vehicle Driver) at Fort Ord, California.

6.  On 25 June 1968 he was assigned to the 172nd Transportation Company in Vietnam.  He completed a tour of duty in Vietnam on 21 June 1969, participating in 4 counteroffenses, and earning the Vietnam Service Medal, the Vietnam Campaign Medal, and the National Defense Service Medal.  

7.  On 21 June 1969 he departed Vietnam in casual status en route to Fort Ord, California.

8.  On 19 November 1969 he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.  The punishment imposed included forfeiture of $25 and 7 days extra duty.

9.  On 12 March 1970 he departed Fort, Ord, California en route to Germany.

10.  On 13 July 1970 he accepted NJP for being absent from bed check.  The punishment imposed included reduction to private first class/E-3 (suspended).
11.  On 20 August 1970 the NJP was vacated because the applicant failed to go to his appointed place of duty and he was reduced to private first class/E-3. 

12.  On 24 August 1970 he accepted NJP for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.  The punishment imposed included forfeiture of $35.

13.  On 20 November 1970 he was convicted by a summary court-martial (SCM) for 3 specifications of being absent from duty.  He was sentenced to reduction to private/E-1, forfeiture of $90, and 60 days restriction to the company area. 

14.  On 19 November 1970 the applicant was furnished with a letter of explanation from the commander detailing his 60-day restriction.  He was only allowed to be at the chow hall during dining hours and at the chapel by prior appointment.  After duty hours, he was restricted to his assigned room in the billets or to the latrine.  His association with other servicemembers was severely limited in that he was not allowed outside his billet room, or to receive visitors, nor was his roommate allowed visitors. 

15.  On 3 December 1970 a bar to reenlistment was imposed against the applicant. 

16.  On 9 December 1970 the applicant was charged with breaking restriction by returning 30 minutes late from the mess hall, for visiting another billet room, for disrespect to a noncommissioned officer (NCO) after the NCO accidentally slammed a door on the applicant’s leg, and for receiving visitors in his billet room. The applicant acknowledged notification of the charges, and after legal consultation, he requested discharge in lieu of court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200.  

17.  On 22 January 1971 the applicant was provided with a mental evaluation as part of the separation process.  The examiner diagnosed an emotional instability reaction disorder. 

18.  On 27 January 1971 the appropriate authority approved his discharge and ordered him separated with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate (DD Form 258A).  Accordingly, on 8 February 1971 the applicant was discharged having completed 2 years, 11 months, and 27 days of active military service.

19.  Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, sets forth the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 

20.  On 1 September 1972 the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade.  The applicant was also reviewed and denied an upgrade under the Special Discharge Review Program on 29 July 1977.

21.  The applicant has submitted a current statement from his psychiatrist dated 27 October 1999.  The psychiatrist indicates that the applicant has PTSD associated with his experiences in Vietnam and a bipolar mood disorder with both manic and depressive features.  He is unable to determine whether the applicant’s underlining bipolar disorder is exacerbated by the PTSD or whether it was a condition that manifested itself in time.  The applicant self-medicates primarily with alcohol and marijuana to control his anxiety and tension consequent to his PTSD.  The applicant is essentially unable to work or to feel comfortable enough to seek a job.

22.  In a written statements dated 9 November 1998 the applicant’s mother and sister describe his behavior after his return from Vietnam.  They state that he attempted suicide on three occasions, that he was withdrawn and suffered from depression, insomnia, flashbacks and nightmares. 

23.  In a written statement dated 6 April 1999 a lifelong friend of the applicant’s states that since his return from Vietnam the applicant has a long history of relationship problems, suicide attempts, difficulty holding a job, and trouble with authority figures.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

2.  The Board does not condone the applicant’s acts of indiscipline.  However, it should be noted that his offenses were violations of military rules and regulations and were not otherwise serious offenses against society.

3.  The Board determined that the unit commander programmed the applicant for failure by imposing restrictions so limiting that the average soldier would have difficulty meeting.  The Board noted that the summary court-martial sentenced the applicant to 60 days restriction, however, the restriction tended to deny the applicant normal access to other soldiers.

4.  The Board also noted that the applicant was barred to reenlist, and was within 4 days of his normal discharge and would have received an honorable discharge if allowed to go to the expiration of his term of service.

5.  The Board determined that the applicant’s misconduct and the subsequent decisions he made concerning his chapter 10 discharge were partially mitigated by his diagnosed emotional instability disorder and his overall length and quality of service. 

6.  Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected to show that the individual concerned was separated from the service with a General Discharge Certificate on 8 February 1971.  The reason and authority remain unchanged.

2.  That the Department of the Army issue to the individual concerned a General Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 8 February 1971, in lieu of the discharge certificate of the same date now held by him.
 
BOARD VOTE:  

_RVOC JR     JHK        EWL JR   GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000036018	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000503	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19710208	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C10	
DISCHARGE REASON	144.7000.0000	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT 	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 	144.9406.0000	
2. 	144.9324.0000	
3.	144.0100.0000	
4.		
5.		
6.