MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           12 April 2001     
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000049108

	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	
	Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Roger W. Able		Chairperson	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman		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:  The applicant, as the widow of a deceased former service member (FSM), requests that her husband’s general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the FSM is entitled to an honorable discharge for medical conditions because he was suffering with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and a nervous condition at the time of his separation due to traumatic wartime conditions incurred during his service in Vietnam.  She contends that the FSM was aggravated with such medical conditions until his death on 8 July 1973.  She also contends that the FSM did not exhibit any signs nor symptoms of PTSD, which could also have been symptoms of Agent Orange, prior to wartime in Vietnam.  The applicant goes on to state that the FSM also suffered with weight loss, stomach problems, Alopecia Areata (baldness occurring in sharply defined patches), loss of appetite, foot problems, eye problems, a broken finger and an elbow injury during his military service.  He was seen several times in the Army Mental Hygiene Clinic and was treated for his nervous condition with a number of medications.  She further states that the FSM was taking these medications while consuming alcohol, that he had an accident in North Carolina and was discharged for the good of the service.  The applicant points out that the FSM’s health was noted as good when he was separated; however, she claims that the FSM’s health was not good.  She contends that the FSM was in no state of mind to seek appropriate channels, nor could he adjust to stateside duty.  She does not agree that his discharge was for the good of the service because the FSM could no longer function.  The FSM did not receive any medication after his discharge, his condition worsened and he was not eligible for medical assistance. In support of her application, she submits numerous copies of the FSM’s service personnel and medical records.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The FSM's military records show he entered active duty on 20 February 1967.  He served as a field radio repairman in Vietnam from 8 November 1967 through 3 November 1968 and was honorably discharged on 11 December 1969.  He reenlisted on 12 December 1969 for a period of 4 years.

On 3 April 1970 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the FSM for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, being incapacitated for duty as a result of previous indulgence in intoxicating liquor and failure to obey a lawful order.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay (partially suspended), reduction to specialist four (suspended for 6 months) and extra duty and restriction (partially suspended).  

The FSM served as a field radio repairman in Korea from 4 September 1970 through 3 October 1971.

On 10 April 1972 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the FSM for being AWOL from 23 March 1972 to 5 April 1972.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.

The FSM went AWOL on 30 May 1972, was apprehended by civil authorities and returned to military control on 13 August 1972.  Charges were preferred against the applicant on 17 August 1972.  Trial by special court-martial was recommended.      

On 7 September 1972, after consulting with counsel, the FSM submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He indicated in his request that he voluntarily made the choice to submit this request, that he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He acknowledged that he may be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA and that he may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  Additionally, he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The intermediate commanders recommended approval of the FSM’s request for discharge and that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. 

Prior to his discharge, the FSM underwent a separation medical examination on 8 September 1972.  Item 8 (Statement of Examinee’s Present Health and Medications Currently Used) on his Standard Form 93 (Report of Medical History), dated 8 September 1972, shows the FSM provided the entry “HEALTH GOOD”.  The FSM indicated “NO” in item 11 (Have You Ever Had or Have You Now) to “Nervous trouble of any sort”.  He indicated “NO” to item 16 (Have you ever been treated for a mental condition?).  Item 25 (Physician’s Summary and Elaboration of all Pertinent Data) on the Standard Form 93 also shows the entry “No significant medical problems since last physical evaluation”.  There is no evidence of any medical conditions.

On 13 September 1972 the appropriate authority approved the FSM’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge.

Accordingly, the FSM was discharged under other than honorable conditions on
15 September 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He had served 5 years, 4 months, and 29 days of total active service and he had 90 days of lost time.

The Army Discharge Review Board upgraded the FSM’s discharge to under honorable conditions (a general discharge) on 13 August 1974.  
 
The applicant provided numerous copies of the FSM’s service medical records in support of her claim.  These medical records, dated 15 December 1967 to 
12 April 1972, show that the FSM was evaluated and treated for various complaints and conditions during his military service which included loss of appetite/weight loss, stomach problems, Alopecia Areata, foot problems, eye problems, and fractured bones.       

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. 

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

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 considered the applicant’s contention that the FSM is entitled to an honorable discharge for medical conditions because he was suffering with PTSD and a nervous condition at the time of his separation due to traumatic wartime conditions incurred during his service in Vietnam.  However, service medical records do not indicate any medical condition incurred while entitled to receive basic pay which was so severe as to render the FSM medically unfit for retention on active duty.  At the time of the separation physical examination, competent medical authority determined that there was “No significant medical problems”.  Accordingly, the FSM was separated from active duty for the good of the service, not as the result of a medical condition. 

2.  The FSM’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.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
4.  The Army Discharge Review Board upgraded the FSM’s discharge to under honorable conditions (a general discharge) on 13 August 1974. 

5.  The Board reviewed the FSM’s record of service which included two nonjudicial punishments and 90 days of lost time and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the FSM is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

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

RWA___  RTD_____  DPH____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000049108	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010412	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)  ADRB upgraded the UOTHC on 19740813	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720915	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the good of the service	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.