RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        09 AUGUST 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040008134


      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             |
|     |Ms. Gale J. Thomas                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Barbara Ellis                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Kenneth Wright                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Patrick McGann                |     |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 that his discharge be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states that he enlisted in the Army when he was 18 years
old and had a chance to go to Officer Candidate School but was denied
attendance because of some traffic tickets he received while in high
school.  He details the numerous hardships and atrocities that he witnessed
and experienced while in Vietnam and notes that he sustained a combat wound
to his arm for which he was awarded the Purple Heart.

3.  He states that he continued to see the trauma of war while being
treated at a medical facility for his combat wound and that his wound cause
him great pain.  He states that he was told not to stand formation and that
he should roll his sleeve up above his wound to alleviate the pain.
Because of this he was not permitted to stand formation by his unit first
sergeant who then charged him with being AWOL (absent without leave).   He
states that this was the beginning of the end for him as a good Soldier and
that finally he just went AWOL.

4.  He states that he evaded the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) but
eventually turned himself in after meeting a girl he wanted to marry.  He
states that he took the most expeditious path available to get out of the
Army because he just wanted to put it all behind him.

5.  He states he continues to have problems with his arm and is unable to
sleep because of reliving the horrors experienced in Vietnam.

6.  The applicant provides a statement from his brother, mother, and two
family friends who all state they have witnessed the applicant’s pain and
suffering as a result of his service in Vietnam.  They note that he is a
patriotic, truthful, and law abiding citizen who deserves to have his
discharge upgraded.  He provides a copy of orders awarding him the
Parachutist Badge, the Combat Infantryman Badge, and the Purple Heart in
support of his request.  He also submits a copy of a psychological
evaluation conducted in 2004.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant enlisted and
entered active duty on 6 January 1967, at the age of 17.  He was trained as
an infantryman and completed airborne training prior to being assigned to
Fort Campbell, Kentucky in September 1967.  He was also promoted to pay
grade
E-3 in September 1967.
2.  In December 1967 the applicant deployed to Vietnam as part of a unit
move from Fort Campbell.  On 8 March 1968 he sustained a gunshot wound to
his left wrist for which he was awarded the Purple Heart.  Ultimately, as a
result of his wound, he was medically evacuation from Vietnam.  In June
1968 he was returned to duty at Fort Carson, Colorado.

3.  In November 1968 he was punished under Article 15 of the Uniform Code
of Military Justice for disobeying an order.  He was punished again in
December 1968 for abandoning his post as a barrack’s guard.

4.  His records indicate that he departed AWOL in January 1969 and that he
was dropped from the rolls of the Army in February 1969.  However, on 24
October 1969 he was only convicted of AWOL for the period 18 February 1969,
the date he was dropped from the rolls of the Army and 6 October 1969 when
he returned to military control.

5.  On 6 November 1969 the applicant again departed AWOL and was
subsequently dropped from the rolls of the Army.  He surrendered to
military authorities on 25 February 1977, nearly 8 years later.

6.  Documents associated with his administrative separation were not in
records available to the Board.  However, his separation document indicates
that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 30 March
1977 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10.  He was
issued an undesirable discharge certificate.

7.  A mental status evaluation, completed on 28 February 1977, notes that
the applicant’s behavior was normal, that he was fully alert and oriented,
and that his mood was level and his thought process clear and normal.  The
evaluating physician concluded that the applicant was mentally responsible,
able to distinguish right from wrong, and to adhere to the right.

8.  In a report of medical history, the applicant indicated that his health
was good and that he did not suffer with depression or excessive worry, had
no loss of memory, experienced no nervous trouble of any sort, and did not
have trouble sleeping.  He was found medically qualified for separation.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides
for the administrative separation for the good of the service.  The
separation is voluntary and generally included a statement that the
applicant understood the ramifications of a discharge under other than
honorable conditions, which he might receive as a result of being
discharged for the good of the service.  In pertinent part, Chapter 10
states 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 have been 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.

10.  The psychological evaluation, submitted by the applicant in support of
his request, was conducted October 2004 and notes that the applicant
“received a less than honorable discharge from the Army on 03/23/97” and
that he was “seeking to have his discharge upgraded to at least a general
discharge.”  The physician noted that following the applicant’s discharge
from the Army he got a job on a shrimp boat and had an accident that
further damaged his arm, which resulted in his arm being amputated above
the elbow.  He notes that the applicant had a history of several head
injuries, including being struck by a car in 1995.  He was divorced 5 years
prior to the evaluation after a 7-year marriage, was taking Methadone and
Xanax, and lived with his mother.

11.  The physician indicated that the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory-2 was discontinued after 2 hours when the applicant had completed
only 105 of the questions and because it was difficult for the applicant to
concentrate.  He also complained of pain in the remaining portion of his
left arm.  He noted the applicant stated that he sleeps poorly without his
medication, feels fatigue and depression, and that he has had suicidal
thoughts.  He states that the applicant related that “at the time he went
AWOL he was having (and continues to have) frequent recollections about
traumatic events in Vietnams” but at the “time he went AWOL he tried to
avoid thoughts and feelings about Vietnam.”  He concluded that the
applicant “appears to have had the symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder [PTSD] at the time he went AWOL” and that he currently “appears to
have Depressive Disorder….”  He noted that “in retrospect it appears very
likely that [the applicant] had Post Traumatic Stress Disorder at the time
he went AWOL following his return from combat in Vietnam and subsequent
hospitalization.”  He states that “in his affidavit [the applicant] reports
flashbacks of his experiences in Vietnam in both his thoughts and his
dreams.”

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the applicant's
administrative separation is presumed to have been accomplished in
accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

2.  The applicant’s contention that he, in effect, is a law abiding,
patriotic man, that he was young when he enlisted in the Army, that he
served in Vietnam and was awarded a Purple Heart, the Combat Infantryman
Badge, and a Parachutist Badge, has been noted.  However, none of those
issues, individually or collectively, outweigh the seriousness of the
applicant's conduct during a period of hostilities, and do not provide an
adequate basis upon which the Board would grant relief as a matter of
equity.

3.  The applicant was discharged, at his request, in lieu of being tried by
court-martial for AWOL and desertion.  The applicant’s experiences in
Vietnam were not unlike those of many other Soldiers who, in spite of the
traumas of war, served out their military commitment with honor.

4.  Absent convincing evidence that, at the time of the discharge or during
the behavior that led to his discharge, the applicant was so impaired by
psychiatric, psychological, mental, or emotional problems that he could not
both tell right from wrong and adhere to the right, the PTSD issue raised
in 2004 does nothing to demonstrate an error or an injustice in his
discharge.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in
error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would
satisfy that requirement.

6.  The actions by the Army in this case were proper, and there is no doubt
to be resolved in favor of the applicant.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__BE ___  ___KW __  ___PM __  DENY APPLICATION







BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.




                                  ______Barbara Ellis_________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040008134                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050809                                |
|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.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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