MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            18 July 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000038290

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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:  In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he should not have been given a bad discharge when he had no control over what he was doing.  He claims to be suffering from a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) which was influencing his conduct at the time of his discharge.  In support of his application he has provided the enclosed Psychiatric Review Technique Form (PRTF) which contains an evaluation conducted by the Social Security Administration. 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

On 1 February 1967, the applicant entered the Regular Army for 3 years and he was assigned to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri to attend basic combat training. 

On 6 June 1967, while still in basic training, the applicant was tried and convicted by special court-martial for being AWOL from 26 March to 13 May 1967.  The resultant sentence included a forfeiture of $60.00 per month for 6 months and confinement at hard labor for 6 months.  On 14 July 1967, the unexecuted portion of the sentence pertaining to confinement at hard labor was suspended for 6 months.  

In October 1967 he completed basic training and was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas to attend advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Hood, Texas.  On 
2 August 1968, while still attending AIT, he accepted nonjudicial punishment, under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, for being AWOL from his unit between 2 and 5 August 1968.  His punishment for this offense was 14 days of restriction and extra duty.  

In August 1968, upon successful completion of AIT, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 64B (Heavy Vehicle Driver) and he was assigned to combat duty in Vietnam for his first permanent duty station, where he arrived for duty in September 1968.

On 28 November 1968, while serving in Vietnam, the applicant was promoted to the rank of specialist/E-4 (SP4), which is the highest rank he held while on active duty.  The record shows that during his service in Vietnam the applicant was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal and the Vietnam Campaign Medal.  However, there is no evidence to show that he ever earned an award for valor or that he incurred any wounds during his combat service in Vietnam. 

The applicant completed 10 months of his tour in Vietnam in July 1969 and was reassigned to Fort Riley, Kansas, where he arrived on 6 September 1969.  On 
8 September 1969, the applicant went AWOL from his unit at Fort Riley and he was dropped from the rolls of his organization on 18 October 1969.  
On 2 October 1974, the applicant returned to military control at Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana.  On 3 October 1974, he underwent a separation physical examination, which is documented in a Standard Form (SF) 88 (Report of Medical Examination) contained in the record.  Block 42 (psychiatric) of the
SF 88 contains a normal clinical evaluation of the applicant’s  psychiatric status.  Block 73 (notes) contains a hand written entry by the applicant which states that he was in good health and that he was not taking any medication at the time.  The findings of the physical examination contains no indication that the applicant suffered from either a disqualifying medical or psychiatric condition.  He was determined to be medically fit for retention and he was cleared for separation by competent medical authority. 

On 5 October 1974, the applicant consulted legal counsel and elected an option to sign a “Reaffirmation of Allegiance and Pledge and to Complete Alternate Service” statement and to accept an UD, under the provisions of Presidential Proclamation Number 4313 (PP #4313), dated 16 September 1974.  In this statement he swore his allegiance to the United States of America; acknowledged his guilt to the AWOL offense; and indicated his willingness to perform whatever alternate service was prescribed for him, and to complete that service within a period of 11 months.  

The applicant was also advised by counsel of the nature of the offenses for which he could be tried; the maximum permissible punishment that could be imposed; the consequences of an UD; the nature and effect of his pledge to perform alternate service; and of the procedures and rights available to him.  At the conclusion of this counseling the applicant voluntarily requested that he be discharged for the good of the service pursuant to the provisions of Presidential Proclamation Number 4313, dated 16 September 1974.  

Accordingly, on 5 October 1974, the applicant was separated with an UD after completing 2 years, 7 months, and 7 days of creditable active military service.  
At the time of his discharge the applicant had accrued a total of 143 days of time lost prior to his normal discharge and 1702 days of time lost subsequent to his normal expiration of term of service of 31 January 1970.  

The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation From Active Duty) issued to and signed by the applicant on the date of his separation verifies that the applicant had agreed to serve 11 months of alternate service pursuant to Presidential Proclamation Number 4313.  There is no evidence that the applicant ever performed his alternate service or that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade to his discharge within the 15 year statute of limitations.

The applicant provided as evidence a PRTF, dated 19 May 1998, which contains an evaluation conducted by the Social Security Administration.  Their findings indicate, in part, that the applicant suffers from a PTSD which prevents him from working in crowds of people and doing stressful jobs. 

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.  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.  

Army Regulation 40-501 does not specifically categorize PTSD; however, it does address anxiety or neurotic disorders, which include PTSD, and provides that such disorders are unfitting only if persistence or recurrence of symptoms is sufficient to require extended or recurrent hospitalization, creates a necessity for limitations of duty or duty in a protected environment or resulting in interference with effective performance of military duty.  

PP #4313 afforded members, who were AWOL from the Armed Forces, the opportunity to return to military control and elect either an UD or to stand trial for their offenses and take whatever punishment resulted.  For those who elected discharge a period of alternate service would be established for the individual to serve.  Alternate service was to be conducted under the supervision of the Selective Service (SS) system.  The individual was responsible for finding a job which met the requirements of program and had to obtain approval of his state SS officials regarding the job, and these officials would receive periodic reports on how the individual was performing.  

Upon successful completion of this service the member’s military service would be notified and they would be issued a clemency discharge (CD).  This CD did not effect the underlying discharge and did not entitle the individual to any benefits administered by the VA.  The ADRB, as a matter of policy, considered CD’s as sufficient new evidence to authorize a rehearing of the case; however, the CD carried no automatic upgrade or any other impact on the ADRB evaluation process.  

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.  While the Board is empathetic with the applicant’s current medical condition, this alone does not provide sufficient mitigation to warrant an upgrade of the discharge under review.  Although he has provided medical evidence which suggests he now suffers from a PTSD, the record shows that he underwent a complete medical evaluation prior to his separation and that he was cleared for discharge by competent medical authority.  Therefore, the Board finds this factor does not provide a sufficient basis for relief.

2.  The Army used established standards and procedures for determining fitness for entrance and retention and utilized those procedures and standards in evaluating the applicant at the time of his discharge.  This specific PTSD diagnostic label given to his condition a decade or more after his discharge does not call into question the application of the then existing fitness standards. 

3.  The applicant, even after being advised by legal counsel of the consequences of an UD, voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service.  He made this request  because he wished to avoid a trial by court-martial and the punitive discharge which may have resulted.  The discharge process was conducted in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the applicant’s service was appropriately characterized.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

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

__gp____  ___mvt__  ___eb___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000038290	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/07/18	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1974/10/05	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C10	
DISCHARGE REASON	Good of the Service	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.