| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti | Analyst |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern | Member | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his earlier two appeals to correct his military records by upgrading his undesirable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his unauthorized absences were due to his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) from his experiences in Vietnam.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 24 November 1999 (AR1999028398) and the Board’s 1st reconsideration of his case on 15 March 2001 (AR2001052466).
The applicant submits a copy of his Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rating decision in which he was awarded a 100 percent disability rating for PTSD. This rating decision is new evidence, which has not been considered by the Board in its earlier considerations of his case.
Title 38, United States Code, permits the DVA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service. The DVA, however, is not required by law to determine medical fitness for further military service. The DVA, 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 DVA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency. Furthermore, unlike the Army the DVA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency’s examinations and findings.
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. The condition is described in the current DSM-III-R, pages 247 through 251. 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.
The Manual for Courts-Martial, R.C.M. 916, provides that it is an affirmative defense to any offense that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the accused, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his or her acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense. The accused is presumed to have been mentally responsible at the time of the alleged offense. This presumption continues until the accused establishes, by clear and convincing evidence, that he or she was not mentally responsible at the time of the alleged offense.
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 fact that the applicant was awarded a disability rating for PTSD on 1 May 1999 does not by any means indicate that he suffered from PTSD when he was discharged on 13 March 1980. The Board notes that the applicant’s discharge was almost 11 years from the date he completed his tour in Vietnam.
2. The applicant underwent a complete separation physical examination and was determined medically qualified for separation. If he was suffering from a grave mental condition at that time, it would appear reasonable that he would have told the attending physician the PTSD symptoms he was experiencing.
3. But the primary issue is one that was discussed in the Board’s previous denial. There is no indication that the applicant was ever, or is now, mentally incompetent. Without a finding of mental incompetence, he was responsible for his actions, regardless of whether he was suffering from a physical or mental defect. In other words, even if the applicant was suffering from PTSD while he was on active duty, it would not excuse his numerous periods of AWOL.
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
___mkp__ ___tbr __ ___rks __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001055784 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010807 |
| 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. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091335C070212
A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. 916, provides that it is an affirmative defense to any offense that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the accused, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his or her acts. Consideration has been given to the applicant's contentions; however, there is no evidence, and the applicant has provided no...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060005892C070205
The applicant provides copies of a 12 page Mental Health Outpatient Progress Note related to his treatment for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and a statement from his wife. 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. There is no evidence in the available...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086867C070212
On 7 December 1970, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge. There is no evidence of record or evidence presented by the applicant which indicates procedural errors which would jeopardize the applicant's rights. The applicant has failed to show evidence that he experienced readjustment problems or PTSD during his period of service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199709323C070209
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 he application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. On 31 March 1967, while serving in Germany, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for being AWOL from 30 to 31 March 1967. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199709323
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 he application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his military records be corrected to show that he was separated by reason of physical disability. The applicant has not presented and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070016322
Counsel states that the applicant forwarded a request to the DVA to have his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) corrected based on service-connected disability for PTSD due to his service in the Republic of Vietnam. Counsel then examines the applicants military medical records and argues that the results of these examinations would require the applicant to be considered by a medical board which, counsel contends, would have led to the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9207856
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION : Incorporated herein is a summarization of the applicant’s military records prepared to reflect the Board’s original consideration of his case on 1 February 1995. A copy of the decision, by the general court-martial convening authority (GCMCA), must be forwarded with the disability case file to the physical evaluation board. While PTSD was not recognized as a specific illness at the time of the applicant's separation from the service, the fact that an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1980-1989 | 8500312
APPLICANT STATES : In effect that post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) prevented him from following orders. The applicant’s recent adjustments to civilian life and his parents’ concerns are noted but these matters are not so exemplary nor exceptional as to demonstrate an injustice in the discharge. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1980-1989 | 8809281
He submits 1994 medical reports and evaluations from the Northwest Georgia Regional Hospital describing his alcohol and drug addictions and other mental and emotional problems. He was being processed for separation under conditions that could have led to discharge under other than honorable conditions and was not eligible for physical disability processing. Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it undoubtedly would have recommended relief in spite of the failure to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1980-1989 | 8209981A
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. DISCUSSION : Considering...