BOARD DATE: 17 August 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100007482 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests his general discharge be changed to a medical or honorable discharge. 2. He states he had battle fatigue (known now as post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)) when he left Vietnam. 3. He provides copies of the following: * A completed DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States) in lieu of the DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Records) * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision * Letter from the VA CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant’s military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 18 September 1961, was honorably discharged, and immediately reenlisted on 14 August 1962. 3. A DA Form 8-274 (Medical Condition – Physical Profile Record), dated 19 July 1965, shows he was given a permanent profile for high myopia (nearsightedness), left eye. He was found medically qualified for duty with permanent limitations. His assignment restrictions were no duty requiring normal visual acuity (both eyes), no firing of weapons, no driving of military vehicles, no guard duty, and no field duty extending into dark hours. 4. He was honorably discharged and reenlisted in the RA, in pay grade E-5, on 14 July 1966, for 6 years. 5. On 25 July 1966, he was punished under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being absent from his place of duty on 21 July 1966. 6. On 27 September 1966, he was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 3 through 31 August 1966. 7. He arrived in Vietnam on 11 November 1966. 8. On 25 June 1967, he was punished under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for being AWOL from 14 June through 18 June 1967. 9. He departed Vietnam on 30 July 1967. 10. On 25 March 1968, he was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 10 February through 13 February and from 3 March through 7 March 1968. His sentence consisted of a reduction and restriction. The sentence was approved and ordered executed on 28 March 1968. 11. He was dropped from the rolls of his organization on 30 April 1968 and returned to military control on 1 March 1971. 12. In a statement, dated 28 April 1971, he stated during his induction physical examination he could not pass the eye test. When the medic was informed he [applicant] was volunteering the medic passed him. Numerous physical examinations resulted in a non-constancy evaluation of his eyes. He has high myopia in both eyes. He encountered numerous problems as far as duty was concerned, especially night duty. He had completed more than 9 years of service and attained specialist six/E-6. He also stated he did have what he thought were due reasons for going AWOL, part of which could be substantiated. That part being his eyes. The second reason was racial and difficult to prove because he was not qualified in that area and he had no witnesses to substantiate his claim. He felt he lacked the physical and mental substances to be of further use to the Army. Therefore, he requested a discharge for the good of the service and himself. 13. On 7 May 1971, after consulting with counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10. In doing so, he acknowledged that he had not been coerced with respect to his request for discharge. He also acknowledged he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge (UD) Certificate, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits as a result of the issuance of such a discharge, and that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA. He waived his rights. 14. On 25 May 1971, his unit commander recommended disapproval of his request for discharge for the good of the service. The unit commander stated the applicant’s past conduct and length of recent AWOL period called for general court-martial. 15. On 26 May 1971, his battalion commander recommended approval of his request for discharge and the issuance of a UD Certificate. The battalion commander stated it would not benefit the Army or society to further punish the applicant or to attempt further rehabilitative efforts. 16. On 19 June 1971, the appropriate authority approved his request for discharge for the good of the service, directed that be reduced to pay grade E-1, and issued a UD Certificate. 17. He was discharged in pay grade E-1, on 23 June 1971, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with a UD. He was credited with 1 year, 11 months, and 6 days of net active service this period and he had 1,099 days of lost time. 18. There is no evidence he requested assistance through his chain of command for any medical condition or personal problems which would have prevented him from completing his period of service. His records contain no evidence that he was diagnosed with or treated for a medical condition during his period of service and or that such a condition warranted medical disability discharge processing. 19. On 16 March 1978, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded his UD to a general discharge and restored his rank to private first class/pay grade E-3 under the Special Discharge Review Program. He was reissued a DD Form 214 changing his character of service to under honorable conditions (general). 20. He provided a copy of his VA Rating Decision, dated 9 November 2009, which shows subsequent to his separation he was awarded a 100 percent service-connection disability for PTSD; a continued 20 percent service-connection for peripheral vascular disease, for both the right and left extremities; a continued 40 percent service-connection for diabetes; a continued 30 percent service-connection for nuclear cataracts, both eyes; and a continued 30 percent service-connection for a residual scar of the left lower extremity. He also provided a copy of a letter from the VA which advised him of the amount and payment start date. 21. Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 specified a member who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may, at any time after the charges had been preferred, could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. A UD was normally considered appropriate. The separation authority could direct a general discharge if such a discharge was merited by the Soldier's overall record. 22. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provided an honorable discharge was separation with honor. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate. 23. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating. It provides for Medical Evaluation Boards (MEB), which are convened to document a Soldier's medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is affected by the Soldier's status. A decision is made as to the Soldier's medical qualifications for retention based on the criteria in Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3. If the MEB determines the Soldier does not meet retention standards, the board will recommend referral of the Soldier to a Physical Evaluation Board. 24. Title 38, USC, sections 1110 and 1131, permit the VA to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service. The VA has neither the authority nor the responsibility for determining physical fitness for the military service. It awards disability ratings to veterans for conditions that it determines were incurred during military service and subsequently affect the individual's civilian employability. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his general discharge to a medical or honorable discharge. He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests. He was properly discharged and he has not shown otherwise. 2. He contends, in effect, his misconduct was due to PTSD from serving in Vietnam. However, the evidence of record shows he was punished under Article 15 and convicted by a special court-martial prior to departing for Vietnam. There is also no evidence of record indicating he suffered from PTSD or any disabling condition while in a qualifying duty status pre- or post-Vietnam service which prevented him from completing his period of service or would have supported processing for retirement through medical channels. 3. The evidence also shows he given a permanent profile for being nearsighted in the left eye and was found fit for duty with permanent limitations. He reenlisted (2nd term of reenlistment) again in July 1967 and served continuously until he was reported AWOL and dropped from the rolls on 30 April 1968. Upon his return to military control in 1971, he voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. He waived his opportunity to appear before a court-martial to prove his innocence if he felt he was being wrongfully charged. In fact, he advised his unit commander that he desired to be discharged from the Army. He also acknowledged he understood he could be furnished a UD Certificate. 4. The award of a VA rating does not establish entitlement to a medical discharge and/or medical retirement. Operating under its own policies and regulations, the VA awards ratings because a medical condition is related to service, i.e., service-connected. In this case, he was properly evaluated and is being compensated for his service-connected medical conditions by the VA. 5. On 16 March 1978, the ADRB upgraded his UD to a general discharge and restored his pay grade of E-3. 6. The applicant has provided no evidence or a convincing argument to show his general discharge should be upgraded to honorable and his military records contain no evidence which would entitle him to a further upgrade of his discharge. The evidence shows his misconduct diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. 7. His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. He was properly discharged in accordance with pertinent regulations with due process. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x____ ____x___ ___x____ 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 for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _______ _ x_______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100007482 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)