Author: +

ABCMR Memorandum of                                                                    AC97-07182
Consideration (cont)

MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            13 May 1998                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AC97-07182

	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.  The following members, a quorum, were present:

| Ms. | Joann H. Langston | | Chairperson
| Mr. | Thomas N. Kuhn | | Member
| Ms. | Shirley L. Powell | | Member

	Also present, without vote, were:

| Mr. | Loren G. Harrell | | Director
| Mr. | Joseph A. Adriance | | Analyst

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	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 he would like his general/under honorable conditions discharge (GD) upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he never laid hands on anyone so how could he have assaulted anyone, and that he now suffers from a post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  The applicant has enclosed with his application progress notes from a psychology evaluation conducted by a psychologist from the Veterans Administration Medical Center at Knoxvillle, Iowa.

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

On 25 September 1968 the applicant entered the Regular Army for a period 
2 years at 19 years of age.  He successfully completed basic training at Fort Campbell, Kentucky and attended advanced individual training at Fort Polk, Louisiana. 

The applicant’s record contains no documentation of acts of achievement, valor, or service warranting special recognition.  However, his record contains an extensive record of disciplinary infractions which includes:  acceptance of one nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ; one conviction by summary court-martial; and three convictions by special 
courts-martial.

On 4 January 1969 the applicant was tried by summary court-martial for violation of Article 86 for being AWOL from 9 to 16 December 1968.  He was found guilty and the resultant sentence included confinement at hard labor for 30 days (suspended) and forfeiture of $40.00.

On 18 January 1969 the applicant was tried by special court-martial for violation of Article 121 for theft of items with a total value of $110.45.  He was found guilty and his sentence included confinement at hard labor for 6 months and forfeiture of $40.00 per month for 4 months.

On 12 February 1969 the applicant was again tried by special court-martial for violation of Article 95 for escaping from lawful confinement.  He was found guilty and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 4 months and forfeiture of $41.00 for 4 months.

On 28 April 1969 the applicant underwent his last trial by special court-martial for violation of Article 86 for being AWOL from 31 March to 7 April 1969.  He was found guilty and his sentence was confinement at hard labor for 3 months and forfeiture of $41.00 for 3 months.

On 7 October 1969 the applicant accepted an NJP for being AWOL from 2 to 
7 October 1969.  His punishment for this offense was a forfeiture of $15.00.

On 19 November 1969 the applicant’s unit commander advised the applicant of his intent to initiate elimination action on him, under the provisions of paragraph 6(b) of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability.  On 2 January 1970 the applicant consulted counsel, and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated elimination action, completed his election of rights on which he waived the following rights: consideration of his case before a board of officers; personal appearance before a board of officers; representation by counsel; and he elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.  

On 2 February 1970 the appropriate authority waived rehabilitation requirements, approved the separation action on the applicant for a character and behavior disorder,  and directed the applicant be issued a GD.  Accordingly, on 
13 February 1970 the applicant was discharged after completing 7 months and 27 days of active military service and accruing 264 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.

Department of the Army message # 302221Z, March 1976 changed “character and behavior disorder” to “personality disorder”.  AR 635-200, currently in effect, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-13 provides, in pertinent part, when separation is because of a personality disorder, the service of a soldier separated per this paragraph will be characterized as honorable unless an entry level separation is required under chapter 3, section III.  Characterization of service under honorable conditions may be awarded to a soldier who has been convicted of an offense by general court-martial or who has been convicted by more than one special court-martial in the current enlistment, period of obligated service, or any extension thereof.

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).  The condition is described in the current DSM-IV, pages 424 through 429.  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 here 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. 

Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, provided in pertinent part the policies, procedures, and guidance for the prompt elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unsuitable for further military service.

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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulation applicable at the time.  The reason for and the character of the discharge are commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

2.  The Board examined the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review.  There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as infractions of discipline, the extent thereof, and the seriousness of the offenses.  The Board concluded that the discrediting entries in the applicant's record which included three convictions by special court-martial and a conviction by summary court-martial qualified for a GD even when applying the current standards outlined in AR 635-200 for a personality disorder. AR 635-200 states that a characterization of service under honorable conditions may be awarded to a soldier who has been convicted of an offense by general court-martial or who has been convicted by more than one special court-martial in the current enlistment, period of obligated service, or any extension thereof.

3.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that he now suffers from a PTSD and evaluated the medical evaluation enclosed with his application.  However, the Board determined that the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation at the time of his separation which determined he met medical fitness standards for retention of AR 40-501, and medically cleared him for administrative separation action.  A 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; therefore, the applicant suffering from PTSD at this time does not mitigate his misconduct, during the period of service under review, or warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
4.  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 the aforementioned requirement.
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

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director