PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            10 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000038801

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

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		Member	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III		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 an honorable discharge (HD) and that the following awards and decorations be added to his separation document:  the Air Medal (AM), the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM), the Bronze Star Medal (BSM); and a Presidential Unit Citation.  In addition, he requests that his accelerated advancement to private/E-2; a Certificate of Achievement (CofA) for attaining a maximum score on his individual proficiency tests while in basic training; and the airborne course also be added to his separation documents.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he fought for his country in the infantry in Vietnam and when he returned from his combat tour he was not treated properly. He believes that he had a post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and he could not stand to hear gunshots, planes, or any combat related sounds.  He claims that the doctors could or would not help him with this illness.  

4.  Counsel for the applicant states, in effect, that the applicant’s overall record of service is more deserving of an honorable type discharge because he did complete a tour in Vietnam where he was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB); the BSM; the ARCOM; and the AM, In addition, the applicant earned the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal (RVNCM) and the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) for his service in Vietnam.  Counsel claims that this service would be very stressful and likely to cause psychiatric problems such as PTSD, which was not recognized during his period of active duty, and little was available in the way of treatment.  

5.  The applicant’s military records show that on 2 January 1969 he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He successfully completed basic training at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, advanced individual training at Fort Gordon, Georgia, and the basic airborne course at Fort Benning, Georgia.  Upon completion of his training the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman), a special qualification indicator of P (Parachutist) and he was assigned to combat duty in Vietnam for his first permanent duty station.

6.  Block 33 (Promotions and Reductions) of the applicant’s Department of the Army (DA) Form 20 (Qualification Record) shows that he was promoted to the rank of private/E-2 on 28 February 1969, while still in basic training.  His subsequent promotions, culminating with his promotion to sergeant/E-5 on 4 May 1970, all took place in Vietnam.  

7.  Block 41 (Awards and Decorations) of the DA Form 20 shows that during his tour in Vietnam the applicant earned the CIB; the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM); the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal/with 60 device (RVNCM/w60dev); the ARCOM; the AM; and the BSM. 

8.  His disciplinary record prior to the misconduct which led to his discharge includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, on two separate occasions.  The first on 15 April 1969, while he was still in AIT, for being AWOL for 1 day and the second on 
25 November 1969, for sleeping on guard duty, while he was in Vietnam.

9.  On 27 July 1970, the applicant completed his tour in Vietnam with the 3rd Battalion of the 503rd Infantry Regiment and departed for his assignment to Fort Bragg, North Carolina where he arrived for duty on 10 September 1970.  The record contains no indication that any significant events occurred between the applicant’s arrival at Fort Bragg and his departing his unit AWOL on 17 March 1971.

10.  The applicant was dropped from the rolls of his organization on 15 April 1971 and remained away for a total of 310 days before he was returned to military control at Fort Bragg on 19 January 1972.  

11.  The available records do not include a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the events which led to the applicant’s discharge.  However, the record does include a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), signed by the applicant.  This document shows that on 7 April 1972, he was separated for the good of the service, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  This document also shows that the at the time of his discharge he had completed 2 years, 5 months, and 25 days of creditable active military service and that he had accrued a total of 311 days of time lost due to AWOL.  

12.  Block 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of the DD Form 214 issued to the applicant at the time of his discharge lists only the National Defense Service Medal and the Parachutist Badge.  It does not include any of the individual awards and decorations awarded to him during his Vietnam service.  Block 
25 (Education and Training Completed) of the form does indicate that the applicant completed the basic airborne course. 

13.  Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) establishes the eligibility of individual members for campaign participation credit, assault landing credit, and unit citation badges awarded during the Vietnam Conflict.  

14.  Table 1 of this pamphlet contains a list of Army units with the unit citations they earned and the periods for which they were awarded.  It shows that the 
3rd Battalion of the 503rd Infantry Regiment, the unit with which the applicant served, was awarded the following unit citations during his tenure with the unit:  the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with/Palm (RVNGC/wPalm), for the period 22 October 1967 through 26 September 1970, which was authorized in Department of the Army General Order (DAGO) 51, issued in 1971; and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal (RVNCAHM), for the period 
15 April 1969 through 16 March 1972, as authorized in DAGO 5, issued in 1973. There was no indication in this pamphlet that the applicant’s unit was awarded a Presidential Unit Citation during the his tenure with them in Vietnam. 

15.  There were no medical records available to this Board during the review of this case.  While the applicant indicates that he was providing medical documentation to support his PTSD claim, there was no such supporting medical records included with his application.  In addition, the record is also absent any indication that the applicant suffered from any psychological problems that contributed to the misconduct which led to his separation from the Army. 

16.  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.  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.

17.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for 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.  However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  While the applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to a discharge from the Army, the record did contain a properly constituted DD Form 214, which was authenticated by the applicant.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the Board presumed Government regularity in the discharge process.  

2.  The Board noted the contention of the applicant, and his counsel, that his suffering from PTSD contributed to the misconduct which eventually led to his discharge.  However, after carefully examining the evidence of record and the independent evidence submitted by the applicant, the Board found no corroborating evidence to support this claim.  

3.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In connection with such a discharge, he was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge.  Procedurally, he would have been required to consult with defense counsel, and to voluntarily, and in writing, request separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  

4.  The Board wishes to congratulate the applicant on his combat service in Vietnam.  However, in the absence of information to the contrary, the Board was satisfied that his 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 was accomplished in conformance with applicable regulations.  In addition, the Board found that the character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall record of service.  Therefore, an upgrade to the discharge is not warranted.

5.  The Board noted the applicant’s claim that his accelerated advancement to private/E-2; a CofA for attaining a maximum score on his individual proficiency tests while in basic training; and the airborne course should be added to his separation document.  However, a review of the record shows that all these accomplishments are appropriately recorded in the applicant’s official military personnel file; and only completion of the basic airborne course, which is already listed in block 25 of the applicant’s DD Form 214, is an appropriate entry on the separation document.  Therefore, the Board found there is no additional effective relief to grant in regard to these issues.

6.  The evidence of record shows that applicant had been awarded the following awards and decorations that should have been included in the DD Form 214 issued him at discharge:  the CIB, the ARCOM, the BSM, the AM, the VSM, and the RVNCM/w60dev.  Therefore, the Board determined it would be appropriate to correct this administrative error at this time. 

7.  In addition, it is clear that the applicant is entitled to the RVNGC/wPalm and the RVNCAHM based on his tenure of service with the 3rd Battalion of the 
503rd Infantry Regiment in Vietnam.  Although these awards were authorized subsequent to his discharge, the Board concluded, in the interest of equity, that these awards should be added to the applicant’s record at this time. 

8.  In view of the foregoing, 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:

a.  by showing that the individual concerned earned the RVNGC/wPalm and the RVNCAHM for his service with the 3rd Battalion of the 503rd Infantry Regiment in Vietnam, between 2 August 1969 and 26 July 1970; and 

b.  by issuing the individual concerned a corrected DD Form 214 which adds the following awards and decorations to block 24 of the DD Form 214 issued him at discharge:  the CIB; the BSM; the ARCOM; the AM; the VSM; the RVNCM/w60dev; the RVNGC/wPalm; and the RVNCAHM.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

___tbr __  __gp____  __mkp___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		___Margaret K. Patterson____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000038801	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/05/10	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1972/04/07	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C10	
DISCHARGE REASON	In Lieu of Court-Martial	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT PARTIAL 	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 189	110.0000	
2.  46	107.0000	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.