MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:          29 MAY 2003                    
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003085644

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. Frank C. Jones II		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 military records by upgrading his 1970 under other than honorable conditions discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was suffering from PTSD (Posttraumatic Stress Disorder) after his return from Vietnam.  He states that he did not know what his “mental problems were” at that time and the diagnosis of PTSD did not exist at that time.  He states he would frequently be picked up by the military police at Fort Hood, Texas after he was found “sleep walking in [his] shorts with a broom handle looking for [enemy soldiers] around the perimeter….” He states that he had problems dealing with authority at Fort Hood, and that he had severe sleep disturbance, nightmares, and flashbacks about Vietnam and his combat experiences.    He contends, in effect, these issues were the root of his problems and resulted in the behavior which contributed to his misconduct.  He states that he never intended to serve his country in any other manner than honorable.  In support of his request he submits a May 2002 “progress” note from the Department of Veterans Affairs indicating an “impression” of chronic PTSD, recurrent major depression with psychotic features, and 50/50 global assessment of functioning.

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 (AR2002067922) on 4 April 2002.

Although the Board’s April 2002 summary did not specifically note the applicant’s contention that he suffered from emotional distress, depression, and erratic behavior, following his return from Vietnam, that information was contained in statements submitted by the applicant and his supporters as evidence in the applicant’s original application.  However, there was no medical evidence indicating the applicant was being treated for those complaints.  The applicant’s May 2002 progress notes from the Department of Veterans Affairs is new evidence which requires Board consideration.

The statements submitted in support of the applicant’s original application indicate that the applicant’s health has continued to deteriorate over the years and that he consistently suffers from depression.  Each of the authors of those statements attributes his medical problems to his service in Vietnam.  

There were no service medical records available to the Board, nor did the applicant provide any medical documents associated with his military service following his return to the United States after his service in Vietnam.

As noted in the Board’s original proceedings, documents associated with the applicant’s voluntary request for separation in lieu of trial by court-martial (following a period of AWOL (absent without leave) were also not available to the Board.  However, a locally imposed bar to reenlistment indicated that the applicant “has failed on numerous occasions to pay his just and legal debts” and that he “is completely and totally unable to manage his personal and family affairs in any manner except unsatisfactory and degrading to the military service.”

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 psychiatrists have only categorized PTSD 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, effectsyndrome, combat fatigue and traumatic 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 that an individual might be suffering from psychosis, psychoneurosis, or neurological disorders was outlined in Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), which was in effect at the time of his separation.  

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 applicant’s contention that the misconduct that ultimately led to his under other than honorable conditions discharge was rooted in his combat experiences in Vietnam is not supported by any evidence in available records or provided by the applicant.  Had the applicant been exhibiting the extreme degree of emotional issues he now states he was exhibiting at Fort Hood following completion of his tour of duty in Vietnam, it would have been reasonable to conclude that someone in his chain of command, or the applicant himself, would have raised those issues at the time he was being considered for a local bar to reenlistment or as part of his administrative discharge proceedings.

2.  Rather, the Board notes that the applicant was barred from reenlisting due to his financial problems and his administrative separation was the result of his desire to avoid trial by court-martial following a period of AWOL.

3.  Contrary to the applicant’s contention, although the specific label of PTSD may not have existed at the time of his separation from active duty, the emotional characteristics exhibited by an individual exposed to tragic or traumatic events is not a new concept.

4.  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.

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

___LLS  _  __LE ___  __FCJ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR	
SUFFIX		
RECON	AR2003085644	
DATE BOARDED	20030529	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.