APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his undesirable discharge be corrected to a medical discharge and that he be awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB).

APPLICANT STATES:  That after his tour in Vietnam he began to develop severe psychological problems associated with the heavy combat he had experienced.  He had asked for help with those problems in June 1968 to no avail.  He had severe adjustment problems after his tour in Vietnam and was finally diagnosed as suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in 1984 and has been granted Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for that condition, and was granted total disability from the VA for complications from Agent Orange exposure.  As for the CIB, he states that he served in an infantry unit in Vietnam and experienced heavy combat on several occasions.  In support of his application he submits documents showing that he is receiving disability payments under the Agent Orange Veteran Payment Program and is receiving Supplemental Security Income payments.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 August 1966 for 3 years.  He was awarded the military occupational specialty of field wireman and was assigned to the 2d Battalion, 503rd Infantry, in Vietnam on 7 March 1967.  He served in that unit as a field wireman and a senior field wireman.

While in Vietnam, he was awarded two Purple Hearts for wounds he received in combat, two Army Commendation Medals for Valor, and one Army Commendation Medal for Meritorious Service.  He also accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, UCMJ, on 6 September 1967 for leaving his post as a lookout without being properly relieved.

He returned from Vietnam on 6 March 1968.  He then accepted NJP on 14 May 1968 for failure to repair to reveille on three occasions, and again accepted NJP on 6 June 1968 for being AWOL on 3 and 4 June 1968.

On 3 October 1968 he was convicted by a special
court-martial of being AWOL from 11 to 16 and from 22 to 26 August 1968.  On 29 April 1969 he was convicted by a summary court-martial of being AWOL from 7 March to 15 April 1969.  On 6 June 1969 he was convicted by a general court-martial of being AWOL from 5 to 23 May 1969.  On 30 July 1969 he was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 19 to 24 June and from 25 June to 17 July 1969.

On 7 October 1969 the applicant departed AWOL once again.  He remained AWOL and was declared a deserter from the Army.  He was located in Canada when he applied for permanent admission to that country and was apprehended on 16 April 1973.

He was given a mental status evaluation on 10 April 1973 in which he was determined to meet retention medical fitness standards, and was determined medically qualified for retention without any limitations on a separation physical examination given to him on 19 April 1973.  However, the applicant stated on his physical examination that he was in poor health.

The applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to discharge him under other than honorable conditions and of his rights in conjunction with that recommendation.  The applicant waived all of his rights.  Accordingly, on 11 May 1973 he was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206.  He had a total of 2 years, 7 months and 10 days of creditable service and had 192 days of lost time prior to the expiration of his term of service (ETS), and 1,287 days of lost time subsequent to his ETS.

Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for desertion or AWOL.  Section IV of that regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel who were charged with AWOL or desertion.  Discharge under that provision was authorized only when the period of unauthorized absence was for 1 year or more and retention in the Army was either precluded by regulations or was not considered desirable or in the best interest of the Government.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 4-3a, states that an enlisted soldier may not be referred for, or continue, physical disability processing when action has been started under any regulatory provision which authorizes a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.

Army Regulation 672-5-1 provides, in pertinent part, that to be eligible for the Combat Infantryman Badge, an individual must be an infantryman with an infantry military occupational specialty and must perform primary duty as an infantryman, as a member of an infantry unit of brigade or smaller size, during any period in which that unit was engaged in ground combat.  Battle participation credit alone is not sufficient.

The Army disability rating system reacts based upon the service member’s physical status at a given point in time while the individual is on active duty.  To be separated for physical disability, a soldier must be physically unfit to perform the duties of his rank and grade.  If a disability rating is awarded by the Army, it is permanent and will not change.  Unlike the military, the disability ratings of other agencies may fluctuate based upon an individual’s physical condition at the time of last physical examination.  Disability ratings awarded by the Army are not based upon the same principles as other agencies and, consequently, those agencies may award disability benefits when the Army does not, or if the Army grants disability benefits, the ratings awarded by those agencies may differ from those awarded by the Army.  If a soldier’s physical condition deteriorates after he/she is discharged from the Army, his/her disabilities are properly addressed under other disability systems.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant has not submitted any evidence which would show that he was physically unfit when he deserted from the Army.  Even if he had been physically unfit, it would not have excused his desertion or caused him to be processed under medical regulations.  To the contrary, he was prohibited from being considered for disability separation due to his being processed for an administrative separation which authorized a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant’s combat experience may have had profound effects on him.  However, those experiences did and do not excuse his inappropriate actions.  There is no evidence that he could not determine right from wrong or was unable to adhere to the right.

3.  The applicant was not entitled to the CIB since he was a wireman and not an infantryman.  Although he participated in combat as an active combatant, as evidenced by his decorations, he did so as a wireman, not an infantryman.  A CIB is limited to infantrymen involved in combat and cannot be awarded to individuals who possess other military occupational specialties who may fight next to infantryman in the same battle.

4.  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




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director