MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           21 September 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000043538

	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. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Eric N. Andersen		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:  Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his records by upgrading his discharge to general under honorable conditions. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the discharge should be upgraded because he suffers from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and because the Army did not help him adjust after he returned from Vietnam.  He submits a letter from a psychologist to substantiate his case. 

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case on 23 February 2000 (COPY ATTACHED).

The assertion that the applicant is entitled to the requested relief because he now has PTSD and because the Army did not provide a readjustment program is new argument that requires Board consideration.  

The psychologist states that the applicant’s experience resulted in PTSD.  He also states that “The military holds some responsibility in this matter due to the failure to provide for the combat serviceman’s readjustment to stateside military life.”
 
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.  There is no available evidence that, at the time of the discharge or the behavior that led to the discharge, the applicant was so disabled by PTSD or any other mental, emotional, psychological or psychiatric problem that he could not tell right from wrong. 

2.  There is no available evidence that any “combat serviceman’s readjustment” counseling was required in this case.  The fact that the applicant committed offenses under the UCMJ after he returned from Vietnam does not demonstrate that fact, especially when he was also absent without leave while in Vietnam.    
 
3.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

4.  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

__JHL___  __CLG__  ___ENA__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000043538	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000921	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A94.13	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.