MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           7 November 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002076442

	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	
	Mr. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		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:  In effect, that his military records be corrected to show the rank of specialist four (SP4).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his rank should be restored because he suffers from a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and this condition contributed to the misconduct that resulted in his being court-martialed.  He also states that his reason for his going absent without leave (AWOL) was the death of his best friend in 1968, and the death of his father at a time when he was unaware of how sick he was.  In support of his application, he submits a letter from the Regional Office, Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), Winston Salem, North Carolina. 

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

On 6 June 1966, the applicant entered the Army for a period of 3 years.  On
2 March 1970, he was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD), by reason of expiration term of service.  At the time of his discharge, he had completed 
3 years of active duty service and he held the rank of private/E-2 (PV2).

Item 33 (Appointments and Reductions) of the applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows that he was promoted to SP4 on 15 November 1967, and this was the highest rank he held while serving on active duty.  

The applicant’s record also contains a copy of Special Court-Martial Order 581, 
dated 18 July 1969, issued by Headquarters, Special Troops, Fort Jackson, South Carolina.  This order confirms that he was found guilty of two specifications of AWOL.  The first from on or about 5 October 1968 to on 
or about 6 January 1969, and the second from on or about 20 January 1969 to 
on or about 14 July 1969.

There are no medical or other documents on file in the applicant’s record that give any indication that he was suffered from any psychological problems during his tenure on active duty or that he had any medical condition that contributed to his misconduct.  Further, the record confirms that the applicant was medically cleared for retention and separation at the time of his separation from active duty. 

The DD Form 214 issued to and signed by the applicant on the date of his separation confirms that at the time of his separation he held the rank and pay grade of PV2.  It also shows that during his active duty tenure he earned the National Defense Service Medal; Vietnam Service Medal with 3 bronze service stars and Republic of Vietnam Campaign with 60 Device.  

PTSD, an anxiety disorder, was recognized as a psychiatric disorder in 1980 with the publishing of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).  The condition is described in the current DSM-IV, pages 424 through 429.  However, the Army uses established standards and procedures for determining fitness for entrance and retention and utilized those procedures and standards in evaluating the applicant at the time of his discharge. 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.

Title 38, United States Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service.  The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned.  Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual's medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency.

Army Regulation 635-5 prescribes the separation documents which are prepared for individuals upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army.  It establishes standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  Paragraph 2-4, states in effect, that the active duty grade of rank and pay grade at the time of separation will be entered on the separation document.

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 the contention of the applicant that his rank should be restored to SP4 based on the fact he now suffers from a PTSD and this was the cause of his AWOL related misconduct that resulted in his special court-martial conviction and the resultant reduction.  However, it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.  

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was reduced to the rank of PV2 as a result of a conviction by a special court-martial for two periods of AWOL.  Therefore, lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board finds that the applicant’s reduction, was accomplished in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

3.  While the Board is empathetic with the applicant’s current medical problems, it does not appear that he suffered from a psychological condition at the time of his separation from active duty.  The record shows that he was medically cleared for separation, and that the Army used established standards and procedures for determining his fitness for entrance and retention in his medical evaluation at that time. 

4.  By law, subsequent to a member’s separation from active duty, the decision to grant disability compensation based on the fact that a medical condition exists and this condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned, rests solely with the VA.  

5.  The VA makes these determinations in accordance with its own policies and regulations, and awards compensation accordingly.  The specific PTSD diagnostic label given to the applicant’s condition by the VA a decade or more after his discharge from the service does not call into question the medical fitness standards applied by the Army at the time of his separation.  Therefore, the Board finds it does not provide a basis for relief at this time. 

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

__RVO__  __TBR  _  __DPH __  DENY APPLICATION 

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002076442	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/11/07	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131. 0900	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.