MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           20 August 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002069983

	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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Melinda M. Darby		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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 undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  That he suffers from depression and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of being raped while he was in Vietnam.  An undetermined number of Vietnamese men physically attacked him in an alley and raped him.  It was after this incident occurred that he began to get into trouble and he drank heavily.  He left his unit absent without leave (AWOL) for 30 days and as a result of this he was issued a UD.  He submits in support of his request a diagnostic impressions statement and medication progress notes from Southeastern Arizona Behavioral Health Services, Incorporated, dated 18 September 2001.  The medical documents indicate that the examining official diagnosed the applicant to suffer from PTSD.  His medical problems consist of a history of heart attack, blockage of small arteries and a back injury.  He currently suffers from a high level of depressive symptoms and social anxiety symptoms due to feelings of loss as a result of his inability to work.  He believes that his PTSD symptoms are related to the rape incident in Vietnam.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years on 11 August 1965.  On 11 September 1965, while he was assigned to Fort Polk, Louisiana, for basic combat training (BCT), nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), was imposed against him for being AWOL from his unit from 1900 hours-2015 hours on 11 September 1965.  His punishment included 14 days of extra duty and restriction.  He completed BCT and advanced individual training and he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 36K, Field Wireman.  On 3 January 1966, he was assigned to Vietnam. 

On 1 July 1966, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) of breaking restriction; committing assault upon another soldier by cutting him with a broken beer bottle; willfully and wrongfully destroying private property of a value of about $5.00 on 13 June 1966; and of being AWOL from his unit from 31 May-5 June 1966.  His sentence included confinement at hard labor for 3 months and forfeiture of $60.00 pay per month for 6 months.  On 5 July 1966, that portion of the applicant's sentence that provided for confinement at hard labor for 3 months was suspended for 3 months.  

On 28 July 1966, NJP was imposed against the applicant for violating curfew.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-3 to pay grade E-2, 14 days of extra duty and restriction.  

On 2 September 1966, the applicant was convicted by a SPCM of breaking restriction on 8 August 1966 and of being AWOL from his unit from 8-19 August 1966; of violating a lawful general directive by being in an off limits establishment; and of wrongful appropriation of an M-14 rifle, valued at $122.00, four rifle magazines and eight rounds, valued at $18.00, the property of the United States Government on 8 August 1966.  His sentence included confinement at hard labor for 6 months and forfeiture of $69.00 pay per month for 6 months.  

The applicant remained in military confinement from 21 August-8 September 1966.  On 8 September 1966, the unexecuted portion of the applicant's 1 July 1966 sentence that provided for confinement at hard labor was vacated and he was in confinement from 9 September-8 February 1967.  

On 1 March 1967, the applicant was convicted by a SPCM of being AWOL from his unit from 13-16 February 1967.  His sentence included confinement at hard labor for 6 months and forfeiture of $64.00 pay per month for 6 months.
He remained in confinement from 1 March-30 July 1967.   

On 14 March 1967, while in confinement, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation by a professionally trained psychiatrist at the 935th Medical Detachment, Vietnam.  It was determined that his attitude towards the Army was defective.  The applicant felt that he could not function in the military and he desired to be separated.  He displayed no evidence of mental illness.  However, he was diagnosed to have an inadequate personality.  He was determined to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to be able to adhere to the right.  He also had the mental capacity to participate in board proceedings.  The examining psychiatrist felt that further rehabilitative efforts would be ineffective and the recommendation was that the applicant be expeditiously discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. 

On 30 March 1967, the applicant's commander recommended separation for unfitness with a UD.  

On 4 April 1967, the commander notified the applicant that discharge proceedings had been initiated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. He was also notified of the rights available to him.

On 7 April 1967, the applicant authenticated a statement with his own signature in which he acknowledged that he had consulted with legal counsel and he acknowledged that he had been advised of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness.  He further acknowledged that he understood the effects of a UD, and that he would be ineligible to receive veteran's benefits.  He also waived further representation by legal counsel and a personal appearance before a board of officers.  He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

The applicant was AWOL again from 1 August-9 September 1967.  There is no evidence available to indicate that he was ever punished for this offense.

On 12 September 1967, the applicant underwent a physical examination and he was determined to be physically qualified for separation.  On 23 October 1967, the approval authority waived further rehabilitation, approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness with a UD.

On 30 October 1967, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness with a UD.  He had completed 11 months and 18 days of active military service.  His DD Form 214 shows that he has 392 days of lost time due to being AWOL and in military confinement.  

On 22 July 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel and provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in a frequent pattern of shirking were subject to separation for unfitness.  A UD was normally considered appropriate.

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.  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.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, then in effect, with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  The applicant's service record fully supports both the reason for discharge and the characterization of his service.  The applicant has provided no evidence to the contrary.

3.  The available evidence does not indicate that the applicant was ever physically attacked while he was serving in an active duty status.  Likewise, it does not show that he suffered any PTSD-related illness during his military service.

4.  Prior to being separated from active duty, the applicant received both a physical examination and a mental status evaluation.  He was determined to be fully qualified for separation and he had no medical conditions that were service connected.  

5.  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

__mmd___  __rwa___  __clg___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002069983	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020820D	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19671030	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.5000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.