RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  4 December 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003086867

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings 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:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin		Member	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:  

1.  The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to upgrade his discharge from undesirable to general or honorable.  

2.  The applicant states that he has supporting documentation.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of a letter from a clinical social worker.  This document was not previously reviewed by the ABCMR; therefore, it is considered new evidence.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AC89-08794, on 18 April 1990.  In this document number, request for an upgrade of the applicant's discharge was denied.

2.  At the age of 19 years, he enlisted on 20 January 1967, as a light weapons infantryman (11B), for a period of 3 years.  He served in Vietnam from 3 October 1967 to 20 October 1968, and was separated on temporary records.

3.  His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he was awarded the Parachutist Badge, the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal with four bronze service stars, the Vietnam Campaign Medal, two Overseas Bars, the Army Commendation Medal, and the Air Medal. 

4.  On 27 July 1967, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 13 to 17 July 1967 (4 days).  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and 7 days extra duty.  He was promoted to pay grade E-4 effective 1 April 1968.

5.  He was convicted by a special court-martial on 11 June 1969 of being AWOL from 8 May to 4 June 1969 (27 days).  His sentence consisted of a forfeiture of pay, reduction to the pay grade of E-1, and confinement at hard labor for 6 months. 

6.  Item 26 (Non-Pay Periods Time Lost) of the applicant's DD Form 214, shows that he was AWOL from 5 July to 18 July 1969 (14 days). 

7.  Charges were preferred against the applicant on 6 November 1970, for being AWOL from 22 July 1969 to 17 March 1970 (239 days) and from 26 March to 28 October 1970 (216 days). 

8.  The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 5 November 1970 and was found qualified for separation.

9.  On 29 October 1970, he consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  In doing so, he acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA) if an undesirable discharge were issued.  The applicant waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

10.  On 7 December 1970, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge.  The applicant was discharged on 7 December 1970.  He had a total of 2 years, 6 months, and 17 days of creditable service and had 486 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

11.  The applicant's medical records are unavailable for review.

12.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 14 March 1985.  The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and denied his request on 14 February 1986.

13.  The applicant provided a copy of a letter from a clinical social worker.  The social worker stated that the applicant's discharge was unfair and was based on incidents of AWOL, which in his opinion reflected post-combat psychological readjustment problems.  These problems impaired the applicant's ability to function effectively in a disciplined military environment.  The applicant currently suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and many of his symptoms could be seen in his post-Vietnam active duty adjustment problems.  The applicant was a decorated combat veteran who could not readjust to stateside military life.  He described his advanced individual training (AIT) as "Vietnam oriented" and physically challenging which prepared him for combat.

14.  The social worker also stated he served in a combat unit that suffered many casualties.  He was treated for heat exhaustion, malaria, and burns to this face.  He was awarded several awards and reassigned to a basic combat training (BCT) unit at Fort Dix, New Jersey.  During his assignment, he took his training serious and provided advice to trainees who were being reassigned to Vietnam.  

He was later reassigned to Fort Hood, Texas.  The social worker believed that the applicant was manifesting PTSD symptoms during his assignment at Fort Dix, New Jersey.  While assigned to Fort Hood, Texas, he became disenchanted with training, alienated himself, and later went AWOL.  He was later apprehended and placed in confinement.  

15.  After his separation, the social worker stated that the applicant was employed in numerous jobs.  He experienced problems with employment and was released due to PTSD and readjustment problems.  He also experienced problems with relationships and reintegration into society.  He has applied twice for an upgrade of his discharge and was denied.  However, he does not feel that the applicant was stable enough to present his case to this Board.  Due to his PTSD condition, the applicant is unable to manage his affairs adequately and should not be penalized for not meeting the failure to timely file requirements.  He goes on to state that the applicant would have never been a career soldier due to his Vietnam experience. However, his commendable combat service alone should be sufficient enough to merit consideration in upgrading his discharge.  He concludes that the applicant currently suffers from PTSD.  Based on his post-military readjustment history, it is likely that he was experiencing PTSD while on active duty.  At this time, he encourages favorable consideration of the applicant's request. 

16.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for 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.  However, at the time of the applicant’s separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable
discharge.

17.  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 that an 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 evaluating 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.

18.  The Manual for Courts-Martial, R.C.M. 916, provides that it is an affirmative defense to any offense that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the accused, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his or her acts.  Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense.  The accused is presumed to have been mentally responsible at the time of the alleged offense.  This presumption continues until the accused establishes, by clear and convincing evidence, that he or she was not mentally responsible at the time of the alleged offense.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows that he received punishment for two of his four AWOL offenses and charges were preferred for the additional two offenses.  However, the applicant opted to be discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial for his offenses. 

2.  There is no evidence of record or evidence presented by the applicant which indicates procedural errors which would jeopardize the applicant's rights.  The type of discharge and the reason for separation were appropriate considering all of the facts surrounding this case.

3.  The applicant has failed to show evidence that he experienced readjustment problems or PTSD during his period of service.  While the applicant contends that he suffered from what would later be named PTSD, there is no indication that he was unable to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right.  As such, even if he had PTSD while he was on active duty, it would not constitute a defense for his repeated acts of misconduct.

4.  The applicant's separation medical examination clearly showed that he was found qualified for separation with no mental defects.  The documentation provided by the applicant indicates that he is currently suffering from PTSD; however, this document was prepared 33 years after his discharge. 

5.  The applicant’s stateside and Vietnam service and well-being were considered in the Board’s determination in the reassessment of his discharge status.  However, his four periods of AWOL totaling 486 days are too serious to be excused or to warrant relief.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__wm___  ___kl__  ___ar___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AC9-08794, dated 18 April 1990.

		___Walter T. Morrison__
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003086867	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20031204	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19701207	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 chap 10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	360	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.