IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 February 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150004989 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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that he was unjustly discharged from the U.S. Army. He claims he honorably served his country and he has remained an honorable person subsequent to his discharge from service. He claims, in effect, as a Vietnam-era veteran who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), that he is still proud to have served his country. He further contends that he is in counseling with other veterans who are dealing with many of the same issues. 3. The applicant provides a 2-page document entitled, "Screening for PTSD" from the Anxiety and Depression Association of America (ADAA). 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 June 1975. He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 67V (Observation/Scout Helicopter Repairer). 3. On 18 May 1977, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for using disrespectful language toward a superior noncommissioned officer. 4. On 6 March 1978, court-martial charges were preferred against him for the following UCMJ violations on 22 December 1977: * stealing a transponder valued at $1,750.00, the property of the U.S. Army * unlawfully entering Hanger #6 with the intent to commit larceny 5. On 26 April 1978, he received NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for disobeying a lawful order. 6. The applicant consulted with legal counsel on 27 April 1978 and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of a discharge UOTHC, and the procedures and rights available to him. Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. 7. In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated he understood that if his request for discharge was accepted, he may be discharged UOTHC and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He understood that, as a result of the issuance of such a discharge, he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans' Administration, and that he may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law. He also acknowledged that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of an undesirable discharge. Statements on his own behalf were not submitted by the applicant. 8. On 28 April 1978, the applicant's immediate commander recommended the applicant be administratively separated in accordance with chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), stating the applicant was a detriment to his peers and superiors in that his actions brought disgrace upon the reputation of the good Soldiers in the company. 9. On 2 May 1978, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation. The DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation) resident in his official military personnel file notes the applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, and suffered from no significant mental illness. 10. On 4 May 1978, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed he receive an UOTHC Discharge Certificate. On 15 May 1978, the applicant was discharged accordingly. He completed 2 years, 10 months, and 22 days of total active service this period with no time lost. 11. His record is void of any evidence that shows he was ever diagnosed with or treated for PTSD, PTSD-related symptoms, or any other mental disorder while serving in the Army or subsequent to his service. 12. On 4 November 1983, the applicant was notified by the Army Discharge Review Board that his request to change the character and/or reason for his discharge was denied. 13. The applicant provides a 2-page document entitled, "Screening for PTSD" from the ADAA website. Based on the answers provided to the screening questions, it appears the applicant suspects he might suffer from PTSD. 14. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate. b. Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. c. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's contention that his UOTHC discharge should be upgraded due to suffering from PTSD was carefully considered. 2. His record is void of any evidence and he has not provided sufficient evidence that shows he was ever diagnosed with or treated for PTSD, PTSD-related symptoms, or any other mental condition while serving in the Army or subsequent to his service. 3. The applicant's record shows he was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. 4. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Further, the applicant's discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service. 5. Based on his record of indiscipline, the applicant's service did not meet the standard of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. This misconduct rendered his service unsatisfactory. Notwithstanding the supporting statements provided by the applicant, post-service conduct alone is not a basis for upgrading a discharge. 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) AR20150004989 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150004989 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1