MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 23 August 2001
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001060221

         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
Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. John H. Kern		Chairperson
Mr. Thomas Lanyi		Member
Ms. Paula Mokulis		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: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was in combat in Vietnam with the 1^st Air Cavalry in Quang Tri, that he was suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) at the time of his misconduct, that at the time he was not aware he was suffering from PTSD, and that the PTSD was the cause of his misconduct. He also states that he still suffers from the PTSD nightmares caused from his combat experiences in Vietnam. In support of his application he submits a statement from a veterans service officer (VSO).

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

He enlisted in Newark, New Jersey on 28 August 1968 for a period of 2 years. He completed his basic training at Fort Dix, New Jersey and was transferred to Fort Lee, Virginia to undergo advanced individual training (AIT) as a textile repairman.

On 7 January 1969, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 5 January to 6 January 1969. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.

He departed Fort Lee on 10 January and was transferred to Fort Bragg, North Carolina for duty as a textile repair helper.

He was convicted by a summary court-martial on 19 February 1969 of being AWOL from 6 February to 12 February 1969. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 30 days (suspended for 30 days), reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and a forfeiture of pay.

He volunteered for duty in Vietnam in April 1969 and was transferred to Vietnam on 12 July 1969. He was assigned to the 63^rd Maintenance Battalion in QuangTri, Republic of Vietnam as a textile repair helper.

On 13 August 1969, NJP was imposed against him for being absent from his place of duty. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.

On 24 September 1969, NJP was imposed against him for sleeping on guard duty. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2 and extra duty.

The applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to bar the applicant from reenlistment on 25 September 1969, based on his disciplinary record/history, poor military bearing and appearance, unsatisfactory performance, conduct and efficiency, and his inability to follow orders. The applicant elected not to submit matters in his own behalf and the appropriate authority approved the bar to reenlistment on 3 November 1969.

The applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation on 12 April 1970 due to his unsatisfactory behavior and performance. The commander indicated that he was contemplating separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness. He cited as the basis for his recommendation for separation, the applicant’s disciplinary record, unsatisfactory performance in different jobs under three different NCOs, his unwillingness and failure to respond to numerous counseling sessions, and his unacceptable conduct and attitude. The examining psychiatrist determined that the applicant was mentally responsible to determine right from wrong and to adhere to the right.

The applicant was notified on 12 April 1970 that he was being recommended for separation for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. He cited as the basis for his recommendation, the applicant’s complete disregard for military discipline, habitual shirking of his duties, failure to respond to numerous counseling sessions, and failure to respond to rehabilitative attempts during all of the jobs to which he was assigned (at least four different jobs). After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his right to have his case heard by and appear before a board of officers. He also declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The appropriate authority (a brigadier general) approved the recommendation for discharge on 4 June 1970 and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 10 June 1970 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness, due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities. He had served 1 year, 9 months and 8 days of total active service and had 7 days of lost time due to AWOL.

He applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 21 September 1984 requesting that his discharge be upgraded to honorable because there were mitigating circumstances (family and personal problems) that affected his ability to adjust to military regimentation. The ADRB determined that he was properly discharged, that his service was properly characterized and voted unanimously to deny his request on 21 April 1986.

The supporting document submitted by the applicant with his application consists of a handwritten statement from a VSO which contends that the applicant is a homeless Vietnam veteran who was wounded in combat, who suffers from PTSD as a result of his combat experiences and who deserves an upgrade of his discharge so that he may receive treatment for the wounds and injuries he received while defending his country.

A review of the applicant’s records show that he served in various different positions ranging from textile repair helper, painter, direct exchange clerk in charge of batteries, field sanitation man, and first sergeant’s runner. He received unsatisfactory conduct and efficiency ratings in those positions and there is no indication that he was ever engaged in combat with the enemy. There is also no indication that he was ever wounded/injured in combat while engaged with the enemy or that he was ever awarded the Purple Heart.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. It provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

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. The applicant’s administrative discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no indication of any violations of the applicant’s rights.

2. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore appear to be appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

3. The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board and appear to be without merit. While the Board is not in a position to determine if the applicant suffers from PTSD, the evidence of record clearly shows that his record of misconduct began well before he ever departed for Vietnam. Additionally, there is no evidence to show or suggest that he was ever actively engaged in combat in Vietnam.

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 this 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

___pm___ ___jhk___ ___tl____ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001060221
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	2001/08/23
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1970/06/10
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00/UNFIT
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 583	144.5000/A51.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.