MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


	IN THE CASE OF:       .
	    
	BOARD DATE:            10 June 1998                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AC97-08673

	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:




	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 his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he is suffering from a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), related to his Vietnam service which he completed in 1966; and  this PTSD, for which he received a disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), impacted his duty performance during his second enlistment.

On 19 March 1982 the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 
4 years.  At the time of his reenlistment the applicant had completed  2 years, 
11 months, and 24 days of honorable active military service.  During his prior service he successfully completed a combat tour in Vietnam; an overseas tour in Korea; and he was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal, the Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense service Medal, and the Vietnam Campaign Nedal/w60device.  

The period of service under review began with the applicant attending One Station Unit Training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma for training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 13E (Cannon Fire Direction Specialist) as a private first class/
E-3.  He successfully completed the training and was assigned to Germany as his permanent duty station.

The evidence of record indicates that on 9 March 1984 a DD Form 458 
(Charge Sheet) was prepared preferring a court-martial charge against the applicant for violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ, for being AWOL from 
28 November 1983 to 6 March 1984.  The record also contains documented evidence that on 9 March 1984 the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10 of AR 635-200.  This request was made after the applicant had been advised by counsel of the basis for his contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment, and of the possible effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions. The applicant also attested to the fact that he fully understood 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 veterans benefits under state and federal law. 

On 20 March 1984 the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge, for the good of the service-in lieu of trial by court martial, and directed the applicant be discharged under other than honorable conditions.  Accordingly on 12 March 1984 the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year, 
9 months, and 16 days of the period of service under review, a total of 4 years,
9 months, 10 days of active military service, and accruing 99 days of time lost due to AWOL.  

There is no indication in the applicant’s medical record that he displayed any signs of PTSD prior to or at the time of his second enlistment or at his discharge. On 1 December 1981 the applicant underwent an enlistment physical examination which showed he was in good health and met medical entrance standards.  His Report of Medical History documents that he stated his health at that time was “Good.”  He specifically denied that he had or ever had any nervous trouble of any sort, frequent trouble sleeping, or depression or excessive worry; in addition, the record documents that during his separation processing in 1984 he was advised of his right to request a separation medical examination which he declined.  PTSD, an anxiety disorder, was recognized as a psychiatric disorder in 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.  The Army used established standards and procedures for determining fitness for entrance and retention and utilized those procedures and standards in evaluating the applicant at the time of his second enlistment and at the time of his discharge.  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 the existing fitness standards at the time of the applicant’s service and discharge.

On 23 December 1987 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade to his discharge and found that the discharge process was proper in all respects.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges are preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate for soldiers separating under this chapter.

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 Board noted the applicant’s contention that PTSD, which has been diagnosed by the VA, impaired his ability to serve.  However, there is no evidence to support that the applicant’s PTSD was a mitigating factor in his misconduct.  The applicant underwent a enlistment physical examination, at the time of his reenlistment in 1981, which showed he was in good health and met medical entrance standards. 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 the existing fitness standards at the time of the applicant’s service. 
2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge and after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily, and in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In doing so, the applicant admitted guilt to the stipulated offense under the UCMJ.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3. 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.

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