PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF
        

         BOARD DATE: 19 August 1998
         DOCKET NUMBER: AC97-05680

         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings 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.	June Hajjar		Chairperson
Mr.	Curtis W. Barbee Jr.		Member
Ms.	Margaret K. Patterson		Member

         Also present, without vote, were:

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

         The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

         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)

FINDINGS :

1. The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

---

2. The applicant requests in effect, that the reason for his discharge be changed and he be provided a medical discharge.

3. The applicant states in effect, that he was suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) at the time of his discharge and should have received a medical discharge.

4. The applicant’s military records show that on 25 January 1968 the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States for 2 years at the age of 18. He successfully completed basic training at Fort Bragg, North Carolina and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Ord, California. Upon completion of AIT the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11C (Ammunition Bearer) and assigned to duty in Vietnam as his first permanent duty station.

5. The applicant’s record indicates that the highest rank he attained on active duty was private first class and that he earned the National Defense Service Medal; the Vietnam Service Medal; the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal; and the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry/with palm. The record documents no other acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition. However, the applicant’s record does contain an extensive history of disciplinary infractions which includes one conviction by summary court-martial for willfully disobeying an order from a commissioned officer, and his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment, under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, on three separate occasions.

6. On 17 May 1969 the applicant underwent a complete separation physical examination. Item 42 (Psychiatric) of the clinical evaluation indicated the applicant’s condition as normal. Competent medical authorities concluded in the physical examination that the applicant was in good health and was fully qualified for retention/separation.

7. On 30 May 1969 the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation that produced the following findings: the applicant met retention standards; there was no psychiatric disease or defect which warranted disposition through medical channels; that the applicant was and mentally responsible to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right; that the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings; and that this diagnosis represented that the applicant had a character and behavior disorder. They suggested that if the applicant did not respond to rehabilitation efforts that he should be recommended for separation, under the provisions of AR 635-212.

8. On 3 June 1969 the applicant’s unit commander, based on the situation and recommendations outlined above, initiated separation action on the applicant, under the provisions of AR 635-212 for unsuitability and recommended he be issued a GD. The commander specifically cited the applicant’s character and behavior disorder as the reasons for recommending the applicant’s discharge for unsuitability as opposed to unfitness. The applicant consulted counsel, and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, completed his election of rights by making the following elections: he waived his right to have his case considered by a board of officers; he waived his right to personal appearance before a board of officers; and he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

9. On 15 June 1969 the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s discharge and directed the applicant be issued a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD). Accordingly, on 21 June 1969 the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year, 4 months, and 27 days of active military service.

10. Department of the Army message # 302221Z, March 1976 changed “character and behavior disorder” to “personality disorder”.

11. 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.

12. Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 1332.28, dated 11 August 1982, subject: Discharge Review Board Procedures and Standards, establishes uniform policies, procedures, and standards for the review of discharges or dismissals under Title 10, United States Code, section 1553, and applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Military Departments. Section 4 of that Directive sets forth the objectives for discharge review. It provides that a discharge shall be deemed proper unless it is determined that a change in policy by the military service of which the applicant was a member, made expressly retroactive to the type of discharge under consideration, requires a change in the discharge. Furthermore, a discharge shall be deemed to be equitable unless there is substantial doubt the applicant would have received the same discharge if relevant current policies and procedures had been available to the applicant at the time the discharge was considered, even though the discharge was determined to have been otherwise equitable and proper at the time of issuance.

13. On 19 September 1995 the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and on
17 January 1997 the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Los Angeles, California accepted the applicant into their PTSD program. 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.

14. Title 38, United States Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service. The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service. The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned. Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual's medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency.



CONCLUSIONS:

1. The applicant’s record of service does not meet the criteria for an under honorable conditions discharge by current Army regulations.

2. Had the ADRB reviewed the applicant’s discharge under DOD Directive 1332.28, it is reasonable to presume that his discharge would have been upgraded based on the application of the current regulation for discharges because of a personality disorder.

3. Although DOD Directive 1332.28 provides policy for review of discharges for Discharge Review Boards, it appears appropriate that this Board adopt and apply the standards set forth in this Directive for this particular case.

4. Accordingly, in view of the current standards for discharges issued because of a personality disorder, a discharge under honorable conditions was unduly harsh and unjust. It would now be appropriate to correct the inequity and issue the applicant an Honorable Discharge.

5. The Board considered the applicant’s contention that he should have been given a medical discharge. However, the medical evidence of record
indicates that the applicant was medically fit for retention/separation at the time of his separation. He has submitted no probative medical evidence to the contrary. Since the applicant's medical condition was not medically unfitting for retention at the time of his discharge, in accordance with Army Regulation
40-501, there was no basis for medical retirement or separation.

6. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was separated from the service with an Honorable Discharge Certificate on 21 June 1969.

2. That the Department of the Army issue to the individual concerned an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated
21 June 1969, in lieu of the discharge under honorable conditions of the same date now held by him.

3. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.
BOARD VOTE:

________ ________ ________ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION




                  ______________________
                  CHAIRPERSON