MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  4 June 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002067534

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		Member	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		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:  That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  At the time of his enlistment, he was 17 years of age and was 21 when discharged.  He was not concerned that he was self medicated and possessed a very destructive behavior.  He now knows that he suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), currently takes prescription medication, and has regular visits with his physician on a weekly basis.  He enlisted with the understanding that he would not be assigned to Vietnam and was informed by his recruiter that he would be able to continue his education to obtain his General Educational Development (GED) Certificate.  He was later reassigned to Vietnam and served honorably for 12 months.  After his return from Vietnam, he was treated unfairly, instead of as a fighting man who defended his country honorably.  He believes that he should have been provided some type of therapy, encouraged, or forced to seek counseling from a psychiatrist or social worker that would assist him in coping and adjusting to normal society.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) and a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).

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

At the age of 17 years, he enlisted on 23 October 1967, as an infantry indirect fire crewman.

Between 23 January 1968 and 21 August 1970, the applicant was punished four times under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for participating in a breach of the peace, for being AWOL from 4 to 17 September 1968 
(13 days), and for being disrespectful in language toward his superior noncommissioned officer on two occasions.  His punishments consisted of forfeitures of pay, restriction and extra duties, and correctional custody for
30 days.

He was convicted by two special courts-martial of disobeying a lawful order from his superior commissioned officer and of being AWOL from 17 September 1969 to 19 January 1970 (124 days).  His sentences consisted of forfeitures of pay, confinement at hard labor, and a reduction to the pay grade of E-1.

The applicant underwent a mental evaluation, which determined that he had no significant mental illness, was mentally responsible, could distinguish right from wrong, and that he possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in administrative or judicial proceedings.  The records also indicate that he had a separation physical examination on 29 September 1971; however, it is not in the available records.

On 14 October 1971, the applicant’s commander submitted a recommendation to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities which resulted in total of 544 days of bad time.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his rights and elected to 
submit a statement in his own behalf.  He stated that he had been in the Army for approximately 4 years, had 30 months of good time, and served as an infantryman in Vietnam.  He also stated that he had fought for his country and that the Army was attempting to provide him with an undesirable discharge and that he deserves better.

On 26 October 1971, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.
The applicant was discharged on 17 November 1971.  He had a total of 2 years,
6 months, and 11 days of creditable service and 248 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement prior to his scheduled expiration of term of service (ETS) and 305 days of lost time due to AWOL subsequent to his normal ETS.

The applicant provided a copy of a letter that was prepared by a physician from the DVA.  The letter was written on behalf of the applicant who was requesting an upgrade of his discharge.  The physician stated that the applicant had been involved in a PTSD Clinic since July 2000 and was involved in individual psychotherapy, medication management, and weekly trauma group psychotherapy.  The applicant had volunteered for military service, served in Vietnam, and was a mortar crewman.  He endured specific traumas, participated in many missions, and was exposed to significant threat and danger that continues to haunt him and prevent him from functioning effectively.  
He is compliant with treatment, continues to suffer significantly from symptoms of PTSD, and his symptoms significantly interfere with functioning.  The physician states that the applicant’s stateside and Vietnam service should be taken into consideration in the applicant’s reassessment of his discharge status from general to honorable and that his psychiatric condition and well being be considered during the determination.  The applicant’s symptoms are chronic and will continue to interfere with his ability to function successfully in society and are likely to be exacerbated during times of stress.  The applicant is likely to be permanently and totally disabled for the purposes of employment.  His global assessment of functions (GAF) is 40 and his diagnosis is PTSD, chronic.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 6a(1) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

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.  During the period of time in question, similar psychiatric symptomatology was categorized as hysterical 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.  While PTSD was not recognized as a specific illness at the time of the applicant’s separation from the service, the fact than 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 evaluation 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.

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 notes that he has been diagnosed with PTSD and currently takes prescription medication, which occurred after his discharge.  There is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to show that he was diagnosed with a PTSD type illness prior to his discharge.

2.  The applicant was administered a mental evaluation prior to being recommended for separation which showed that he had no significant mental illness prior to his discharge.  Absent convincing evidence that, at the time of the discharge or the behavior that led to the discharge, the applicant was so impaired by psychiatric, psychological, mental, or emotional problems that he could not both tell right from wrong and adhere to the right, the PTSD issue does not support or demonstrate an error or an injustice in the discharge.

3.  The letter provided by the physician from the DVA stated that the applicant was diagnosed as having PTSD, chronic, with a GAF of 40.  However, this diagnosis was determined approximately 30 years after his discharge.

4.  The applicant’s stateside and Vietnam service, psychiatric condition, and well-being were considered in the Board’s determination in the reassessment of his discharge status.  However, his acts of indiscipline and extensive absences of 248 days prior to his ETS and 305 days subsequent to his normal ETS are too serious to be excused or to warrant relief.

5.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

6.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for that separation were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

7.  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.

8.  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

__jp___  ___rs___  __ao___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002067534	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020604	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19711117	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  360		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.