RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           19 January 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040000376


      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.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Bernard P. Ingold             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Larry C. Bergquist            |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Delia R. Trimble              |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, an upgrade of his undesirable
discharge (UD) to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that more likely than not, he was
suffering from a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

3.  The applicant provides the 13 exhibits listed on his index in support
of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 8 May 1973.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 5 April 2004.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant’s record shows he initially enlisted in the Regular Army
and entered active duty on 15 August 1969.  He was trained in and awarded
military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman) and completed the
basic airborne course and became parachutist qualified.

4.  The applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows he was
assigned to the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) and arrived there for duty on
18 March 1970.  Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) shows he earned the
National Defense Service Medal, Combat Infantryman Badge, Parachutist
Badge, Vietnam Service Medal, Vietnam Campaign Medal and Marksman
Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.

5.  On 30 May 1970, while serving in the RVN, the applicant was honorably
discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  On 31 May 1970, he
reenlisted for 3 years.  Shortly after his reenlistment, he departed the
RVN on ordinarily leave and was scheduled to return on 29 June 1970.

6.  On 6 June 1970, the applicant was admitted to Walter Reed Army Medical
Center (WRAMC) with symptoms of abdominal pain and fever.  On 13 October
1970, the applicant was diagnosed with scrub typhus, secondary to
Rickettsia tsutsugamushi with myocarditis, pneumonitis and disseminated
intravascular coagulation.  The medical recommendation was to return the
applicant to duty with a temporary 3 profile with restrictions of no
strenuous physical activity and assignments within the Continental United
States for one year.  At this time, he was reassigned to Fort Benning,
Georgia.

7.  On 10 November 1970, the applicant was declared absent without leave
(AWOL) after failing to report to Fort Benning, Georgia.  He remained AWOL
for 795 days until returning to military control at Fort Belvoir, Virginia
on 12 January 1973.

8.  On 16 April 1973, his unit commander notified the applicant that he
intended to process him for separation under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-206 as a result of his being AWOL for a period in excess of
1 year.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the
basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects and of the
rights available to him.  Subsequent to counseling, the applicant waived
his right to consideration of his case by a board of officers, his right to
personal appearance before a board of officers and he elected not to submit
a statement in his own behalf.

9.  On 19 April 1973, the unit commander submitted his recommendation that
the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206,
based on his being AWOL for a period in excess of 1 year.

10.  On 4 May 1973, the separation authority approved the separation
recommendation and directed the applicant receive an UD and that he be
reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.  On 8 May 1973, the applicant was
discharged accordingly.

11.  The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant upon his discharge confirms he
completed a total of 1 year, 6 months and 19 days of creditable active
military service and had accrued 795 days of time lost due to AWOL.

12.  On 11 September 1975, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), after
careful consideration of the applicant’s military record and all other
available evidence, determined the applicant was properly discharged and
the applicant’s appeal for an upgrade of his discharge was denied.

13.  On 23 May 1979, the ADRB completed a second review of the applicant’s
case.  After careful consideration of his military records and all the
other evidence available, the ADRB again determined the applicant was
properly discharged.

14.  The applicant provides several military medical treatment records, but
all these documents refer to his scrub typhus condition.  There are no
military medical treatment records either provided by the applicant or
contained in the record that indicate he suffered from any medical or
psychiatric condition that rendered him unfit for further service at the
time of his discharge.

15.  The applicant also provides a statement from his current doctor, dated

20 February 2004.  This letter indicates the applicant has a PTSD with
depression and mood swings.

16.  The applicant also provides two character references from individuals
that have known him for several years.  Both statements attest to his good
character, responsible attitude and his contributions to his community.
They further attest to his maintaining steady employment and to his being a
good husband and family man.

17.  Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, prescribed the
procedures for the processing of enlisted personnel for misconduct, by
reason of fraudulent entry into the service, conviction by a civil court,
and AWOL or desertion.  Section VII provided for the separation of members
for desertion or AWOL when their unauthorized absence had continued for one
year or more.  Members separated under this provision received an UD.

18.  The Army established standards and procedures for determining fitness
for retention and utilized those procedures and standards in evaluating
individuals at the time of the applicant’s discharge.  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 current DSM-IV, pages
424 through 427.  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.
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.
19.  Army Regulation 40-501 does not specifically categorize PTSD; however,
it does address anxiety or neurotic disorders, which include PTSD, and
provides that such disorders are unfitting only if persistence or
recurrence of symptoms is sufficient to require extended or recurrent
hospitalization, creates a necessity for limitations of duty or duty in a
protected environment or resulting in interference with effective
performance of military duty.

20.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing
that applicants to the ADRB are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there,
and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185,
paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined
that the 3 year limit on filing to the ABCMR should commence on the date of
final action by the ADRB.  In complying with this decision, the Board has
adopted the broader policy of calculating the 3-year time limit from the
date of exhaustion in any case where a lower level administrative remedy is
utilized.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that he suffered from a PTSD at the time of
his discharge that impaired his ability to serve and the supporting
evidence he submitted was carefully considered.  However, there is
insufficient evidence to support his claim.  His outstanding post service
conduct and the character references he provided were also evaluated, but
this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to support an upgrade of his
discharge at this late date.

2.  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 discharge.  A
diagnosis of PTSD the applicant has received decades after his discharge
does not call into question his fitness for duty at the time of his
discharge, or the application of the then existing Army medical fitness
standards.  The evidence of record and independent evidence provided by the
applicant fails to show he suffered from a disabling medical or mental
condition that rendered him unfit to perform his military duties at the
time of his discharge.

3.  The evidence of record does confirm the applicant was AWOL for over a
year and he was properly processed for separation in accordance with the
applicable regulation in effect at the time.  All requirements of law and
regulation were met, his rights were fully protected throughout the
separation process and his discharge accurately reflects his overall record
of 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 this requirement.

5.  Records show the applicant exhausted his administrative remedies in
this case when his case was reviewed by the ADRB on 23 May 1979, the date
his case was last reviewed by the ADRB.  As a result, the time for him to
file a request for correction of any error or injustice to this Board
expired on 22 May 1982.  However, he did not file within the 3-year statute
of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or evidence to
show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to file
in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___LCB _  ___DRT_  ___BPI __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate
the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board
determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis
for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




            ____Bernard P. Ingold_____
                    CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040000376                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2001/01/19                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1973/05/08                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-206                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |AWOL                                    |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|110.0000                |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]