MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            1 August 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000038571

	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:

	Ms. Deborah S. Jacobs		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, 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:  In effect, that his records be corrected to show the correct military occupational specialty (MOS) in which he was performing duties in Vietnam.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that there is an error in the MOS in which served in Vietnam.  He claims that he was never a supply handler and was in fact assigned as a security guard.  He claims that for the first eight months he was in Vietnam he performed duties as a security guard, with an M-60 machine gun, at the Saigon River in Cat-Lai, and that he was attached to the 199th Infantry.  He encloses a copy of a photograph and statements from two veterans supporting his contentions.  In addition, he provides the enclosed copy of a transcript from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hearing examiner in regard to his disability claim.  He concludes that he needs this correction to his records in order to support his disability claim to the VA based on his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  

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

On 19 November 1965, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the
United States for 2 years.  He successfully completed basic training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and was assigned to the 84th Chemical Company at Fort Bragg, North Carolina where he was trained in military occupational specialty (MOS) 56A (Supply Handler).  

The applicant’s Department of the Army (DA) Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) verifies, in block 22 (Military Occupational Specialties), the MOSs held by the applicant during his tenure on active duty.  It specifically shows that he was awarded MOS 56A (Supply Handler) on 9 April 1966 and MOS 94B (Cook), as a secondary MOS, on 24 May 1967.  In addition, it indicates that on 
19 October 1967, the applicant was awarded MOS 76Y (Supply Specialist).

Block 38 (Record of Assignments) of the applicant’s DA Form 20 shows that he was assigned to the 117th Transportation Company in Vietnam in July 1966 and served there as a Supply Handler until his departure from Vietnam and reassignment in July 1967.  There is no assignment data contained in this block that would indicate that the applicant served in any other MOS during his tour in Vietnam.  However, in August 1967, the applicant arrived at his new unit, Headquarters Detachment (MT-W1M5-OS), EAMTMTS, Brooklyn, New York, where he was assigned duties in his secondary MOS as a cook, which he performed until his separation from active duty in December 1967.

Block 41 (Awards and Decorations) of the applicant’s DA Form 20 indicates that the only awards earned by the applicant for his Vietnam service were the Vietnam Service Medal and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal.  In addition, block 47 (Signature of Individual) and block 48 (Date of Audit) of his Enlisted Qualification Record shows that he audited and verified the information contained on his DA Form 20 was correct on 16 August 1967.  This certification included the information outlined in the preceding paragraphs of this document.

On 14 September 1967, the applicant completed a Standard Form 99 (Report of Medical History) in connection with his separation physical examination.  In this report the applicant indicated that he was in good health and that his only medical problems were tooth troubles related to an earlier extraction and back pain resulting from a May 1966 incident.  

On 14 September 1967, the applicant underwent a complete separation physical examination, which was documented in a Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination).  In the clinical evaluation portion of this form it shows that the applicant’s psychiatric evaluation was normal.  There were no defects or diagnosis noted during the applicant’s physical examination and he was cleared for separation by competent medical authority.  

The applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains no documents that show that the applicant ever served in a capacity other than those indicated above.  However, the MPRJ does contain a properly constituted Department of Defense (DD) Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), issued to and signed by the applicant on 
1 December 1967, the date of his separation from active duty.  

The DD Form 214 also verifies, in block 23a (Specialty Number and Title) that the applicant held MOS 76A (Supply Clerk) on 1 December 1967, the date he separated from active duty.  It also shows that the applicant was honorably separated after completing 2 years and 12 days of active military service.  

The applicant provided two statements from third party individuals who served with him in Vietnam.  These statements, in effect, indicate that the applicant was never a supply handler in Vietnam and instead primarily served as a unit security guard with an M-16 Rifle, and sometimes performed duties as a cook.  

In addition, the applicant provided a copy of a VA Hearing Examiner Report, dated 25 September 1995.  In this report, the hearing officer indicates, in effect, the record documented no specific type of award or decoration which would have indicated that the applicant was in combat or in an extraordinary stressful situation and that the awards earned by the applicant for his Vietnam service were those ordinarily given to everyone.  Further, the hearing officer indicated that while the applicant’s claim that he was not a supply clerk was creditable, it was also true that he was not a combat infantryman.  The hearing officer concluded by commenting that, lacking evidence of verifiable stressors, the applicant’s claim for service connection was denied.  

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.  

Title 38, United States Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service.  The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned.  

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 Board noted the applicant’s contentions.  However, after carefully examining the evidence of record and the independent evidence submitted by the applicant, the Board found no evidence that would support changing the applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record.  
2.  The evidence or record shows that the applicant served as a supply handler during his tour in Vietnam, which the applicant verified in an audit of his 
DA Form 20 on 16 August 1967.  The Board concedes that the applicant may have performed unit security guard duties while in Vietnam, as he contends and as indicated in the supporting third party statements.  However, the Board finds that this alone does not support a modification to the record.  

3.  The security guard duties alluded to by the applicant may very well have been required of all members of the unit and could have been performed as an additional duty.  If performed in this manner it would not have been required to codify these additional duties in the applicant’s record.  In addition, performance of these additional duties would not have necessarily impacted the record entries containing the applicant’s specific duty assignment and MOS.

4.  While the Board is empathetic with the applicant’s medical problems, it does not appear that he suffered from a psychological condition at the time of his separation from active duty.  The record shows that the applicant was medically cleared for separation by competent authority and that established standards and procedures for determining fitness for entrance and retention were utilized in evaluating the applicant at the time of his discharge. 

5.  By law, subsequent to a member’s separation from active duty, the decision to grant disability compensation based on the fact that a medical condition exists and this condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned, rests solely with the VA.  The VA makes these determinations in accordance with its own policies and regulations, and awards compensation accordingly.  Other than correcting military records, this Board has no impact or role in these VA deliberations.

6.  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.

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

__dj ____  __ewl ___  __kak___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000038571	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/08/01	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 	
DISCHARGE REASON	ETS	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  6	100.0500	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.