MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION   

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            13 FEBRUARY 2003                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002077928

	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	
	Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		Member	
	Mr. Robert J. Osborn II		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 general discharge under the provision of Army Regulation 635-212 (Unsuitability) be changed to a medical discharge or retirement.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was discharged because of a medical condition which has since been determined to have been incorrect.  In support of his request he submits a letter, authored in 2000 by a staff psychologist at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Albuquerque, New Mexico, disputing the applicant's 1972 diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder.  He also submits a 10 September 2001 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Albuquerque.

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

He enlisted and entered active duty on 17 October 1967 at the age of 18.  His enlistment contract indicates that he dropped out of high school because his grandfather died and he went to live with his grandmother.  He subsequently, prior to enlisting, obtained his high school general education diploma (GED).

The applicant indicated on his enlistment physical that he suffered from nervous trouble and that he did not like his teachers because of the way they spoke to students.  He also indicated that he had suffered from an ulcer as a result of constant fighting with his brother who at one time tried to hang him (the applicant).  The applicant was, however, found medically qualified for enlistment.

He successfully completed training and in August 1968 was assigned to Vietnam. By September 1968 he was assigned to the 175th Radio Research Company, in Bien Hoa, Vietnam, as a Morse Interceptor (specialty 05H).  In January 1969 he was promoted to pay grade E-4.  In September 1969 he departed Vietnam and was assigned to an organization in California.

On 1 June 1970 the applicant was discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  His enlistment options included an assignment to Europe.  The applicant arrived in Germany in July 1970.  His performance evaluation report, ending in January 1971 indicated that he was an average performer and that he should be promoted with his contemporaries.  

In July 1970 he was reassigned back to Vietnam where he was initially assigned to the 175th Radio Research Field Station, which was formerly known as the 175th Radio Research Company.  However, in September 1971 he was punished under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for two counts of failing to report for guard duty as ordered.  He was subsequently reassigned, on 
30 September 1971, to the 405th Radio Research Detachment, which was also located in Bien Hoa, Vietnam.  He was awarded an Air Medal for meritorious achievement during the period 11 October 1971 through 16 October 1971.  In November 1971 he received an outstanding performance evaluation report and it was recommended that he be promoted ahead of his contemporaries.

On 12 May 1972 orders were issued reassigning the applicant from Vietnam to Vint Hill Farms Station in Warrenton, Virginia.  His reporting date was established as 20 August 1972 and his departure date from Vietnam was scheduled in July 1972.

On 15 May 1972 the applicant reported to medical officials at his local dispensary, regarding a "vague recent hx [history] of emotional upset [with no] apparent trigger."  He denied any domestic or local situation which had changed and denied use of alcohol and/or drugs.  He was referred to the psychiatry clinic at the 24th Evacuation Hospital.  The evaluating physician noted the applicant was referred because of a "growing sense of anger and irritation which he [was] less and less able to control."  The physician noted that the applicant had a history of difficulties in school, was divorced, and was due to return to the United States in "a couple of months."  His initial diagnosis was "Situation Adjustment Reaction."

The applicant was subsequently admitted to the hospital.  In a clinical record completed on 19 May 1972, the evaluating physician noted that the applicant had "discussed difficulties in the past with his wife ending in a divorce while he was in Germany" and that he had done well in his job until "approximately one week ago at which time he began talking about recurrent suicidal thoughts, an inability to tolerate any further hassle from the lifers, refusing to get his hair cut…talking about jumping out of the chopper and at the same time discussing missions in a rather grandiose manner."  The physician noted that the applicant was "concerned about having to return to the states to an assignment which he had not requested and states that he could not accept a sedentary job within CONUS."  The physician indicated that "in actuality he was probably as much avoiding contact with his wife and daughter" and that prior to his hospitalization he was "talking about a former tour over here when he attempted to hang himself with a wire in the bush but decided to cut himself down."  The physician noted, "there are strong elements of a DEROS type syndrome in this patient," and rendered a diagnosis of "Acute Psychotic Depression."  He recommended the applicant be transferred to a CONUS (Continental United States) facility for further "inpatient medication and therapy."

On 21 May 1972 the applicant arrived at Letterman General Hospital in California.  None of the applicant's medical treatment records from his time at Letterman General Hospital were in records available to the Board.  However, on 7 August 1972 the applicant was reported as absent without leave.  He returned to military control on 29 August 1972 and was punished under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

In an 8 September 1972 "certificate" to the applicant's commander at the Medical Holding Company, a psychiatrist at Letterman General Hospital recommended that the applicant be separated from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 or 635-200.  He indicated that the applicant's "history is one of marginal social adjustment prior to and since coming on active duty," that there was "an indication of a chronic pattern of disciplinary problems since high school" and that there was "evidence of failure to form meaningful or lasting social relationships and of impulsive and manipulative behavior."  The psychiatrist also noted that the applicant had a history of heroin use.  He concluded his "impression" was that the applicant was suffering from "Antisocial Personality, chronic, severe."

On 21 September 1972 the applicant's commander initiated action to administratively separate the applicant from active duty for unsuitability, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.  He based his recommendation on the applicant's personality diagnosis and "failure of all attempts" to counseling and rehabilitation.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation, consulted with counsel, and waived his attendant rights.  He did, however, submit a statement in his own behalf which indicated that he could not "put up with any more military life."  He noted that he felt that Army tried to ruin his life during the past five years and that he hated the Army and was "through producing anything that will help them."

On 24 November 1972 the applicant was discharged "under honorable conditions," and transferred to a "Veterans Administration Hospital" in California.

According to the September 2001 Department of Veterans Affairs rating decision, provided by the applicant in support of his request to the Board, he was granted at 70 percent service connected disability rating for posttraumatic stress disorder in October 2000.

The December 2000 statement, authored by a staff psychologist at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Albuquerque, was written in support of the applicant's "claim for an increase" in his service connected disability rating for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  In that statement the psychologist questioned the validity of the 1972 diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder.  She noted that she had worked closely with the applicant "for just under one year" and that "at no time has either his self-report of past behavior nor his currently observable behavior suggested that he meets criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder."  She noted that the "irritability and alienation from others" that the applicant's psychiatrist noted in 1972 was "typical of PTSD." She supported the applicant's petition to increase his disability rating and noted "as a young man he served two tours of duty in Vietnam, and by the close of his second tour, had experienced so much emotional trauma that he became suicidal, depressed, and soon began to exhibit symptoms of PTSD."  She noted that PTSD was not a diagnostic option until 1981, in spite of the fact that military medicine had "been aware of post-combat reactions since at least the time of the ancient Greeks."  Although the September 2001 Department of Veterans Affairs rating decision discusses individual unemployability and dependent educational assistance, there is no indication the applicant received an increased service connected disability rating as a result of the information provided by the staff psychologist.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time of the applicant's separation, provided for the administrative separation of soldiers for unfitness and unsuitability.  It provided, in pertinent part, for the discharge due to unsuitability of those individuals with character and behavior disorders and disorders of intelligence as determined by medical authority.  When separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual's entire record.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition notes that essential feature of posttraumatic stress disorder is the development of characteristic symptoms following "exposure to an extreme traumatic stressor involving direct personal experience of an event that involves actual or threatened death or serious injury, or other threat to one's physical integrity; or witnessing an event that involves death, injury, or violent death, serious harm, or threat to the physical integrity of another person."  The person's response to the event must involve intense fear, helplessness, or horror.  The characteristic symptoms include persistent reexperiencing of the trauma, etc.  The full symptom picture must be present for more than one month and the disturbance must cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.  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.  While psychiatrists have only categorized PTSD 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.  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 essential feature of Antisocial Personality Disorder is a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood.

Army Regulation 40-501 states that personality, adjustment and disorders usually first evident in adolescence do not render an individual unfit because of physical disability but may result in administrative unfitness.

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.  Although specific medical treatment records regarding the applicant's hospitalization in 1972 and treatment by the Department of Veterans Affairs, following his separation, or nearly 30 years after his release from active duty were not available to the Board, the Board does note that documents which are available from 1972 make no reference whatsoever to any "exposure to an extreme traumatic stressor involving direct personal experience of an event that involves actual or threatened death or serious injury, or other threat to one's physical integrity; or witnessing an event that involves death, injury, or violent death, serious harm, or threat to the physical integrity of another person."  Nor do the 1972 documents reference any "emotional trauma" the applicant may have experienced during either of his tours of duty in Vietnam.  Rather, the Board notes that in 1972 the applicant did not complain of any problems until after he received orders reassigning him back to the United States.  The documents available note a reference to a history of difficulties in school, his divorce, and the applicant's concern about having to return to the United States.

2.  Additionally, the Board notes that it appears the applicant was not granted a service connected disability rating based on PTSD until nearly 30 years after his release from active duty.  The fact that he was then diagnosed as suffering from PTSD may represent the Department of Veterans Affairs conclusions about information provided by the applicant and symptoms that he was displaying at that time, but it is not confirmation that the diagnosis rendered in 1972 was invalid.  In spite of the fact that PTSD was not a recognized term until the 1980s, the exhibit of similar symptoms based on similar stressors were well known at the time the applicant was on active duty.  At the time the psychiatrist at Letterman General Hospital rendered his impression in 1972 there was apparently no indication the applicant was suffering from any of those symptoms or that he reported being exposed to any of the similar stressors.

3.  Although the applicant may now be receiving disability compensation for PTSD, and his current treating psychologist may contend that he does not exhibit the behaviors associated with his 1972 diagnosis, there is insufficient compelling evidence which convinces the Board that the applicant should have been medical retired or discharged from active duty in 1972, or that his administrative discharge was in error or unjust.

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 that 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

__RVO__  __GJW__  __RJO __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002077928	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20030213	
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.	108.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.