RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        2 August 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040009190


      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. W. W. Osborn, Jr.             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. William D. Powers             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Robert L. Duecaster           |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette R. McCants           |     |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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to
general under honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the discharge is inequitable
because he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at the
time of the misconduct that led to the discharge.  He dates the injustice
from his 2002 diagnosis for PTSD.

3.  The applicant provides a description of his Vietnam service and the
events that led to the discharge and a copy of his entire military record.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 8 December 1972.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 18 October 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 limitations 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 enlisted on 11 March 1968, following training as a combat
engineer, he served in Vietnam from 29 October 1968 to 3 December 1969.  He
reenlisted at Fort Carson, Colorado on 12 December 1969 and was transferred
to Germany in January 1970.  He returned to Vietnam on 27 October 1970 and
served until 9 June 1971.  He was stationed at Fort Hood, Texas for the
remainder of his service.

4.  During his first Vietnam tour the applicant was advanced to pay grade E-
4 in April 1969.

5.  Early in his second Vietnam tour he received nonjudicial punishment
(NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ) on 1 November 1970 for disrespectful language toward the first
sergeant and absence from his appointed place of duty [the mess hall].
6.  After his assignment to Fort Hood, he received NJP on 15 December 1971
for a 1-day absence without leave, (AWOL).  On 17 April 1972 he received
another NJP for absence without leave (AWOL) from 22 March to 31 March
1972.  He was reduced to pay grade E-3, but the reduction was suspended.
On 19 April 1972 the suspension was vacated.

7.  The report of a 17 August 1972 psychiatric examination indicates that
the applicant was hostile to military life in general and reacted to
authority with defiance or indifference.  He had refused therapy and
expressed a desire to get out of the service under any conditions.  He was
found to be rational coherent and oriented.  There was no indication of
psychosis or severe neurosis.  He was mentally responsible and able to tell
right from wrong and to adhere to the right.  He had the mental capacity to
understand and participate in separation proceedings.  He was qualified for
retention.

8.  On 21 September 1972 the company commander recommended that the
applicant be discharged for unfitness for repeated petty offenses and
habitual shirking.  He reported that the applicant had been counseled on
six occasions and twice punished by the company commander under Article 15,
UCMJ.

9.  The applicant consulted with counsel and waived his rights to be
represented by counsel, to have his case considered by a board of officers
and to submit statements in his own behalf.  He acknowledged that he could
expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of the
discharge and that he might lose many or all veterans benefits under state
and Federal laws.

10.  The separation authority waived any rehabilitation requirements as
impracticable and directed that the applicant be separated with an
undesirable discharge.

11.  On 8 December 1972 the applicant was separated under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-212.  He had 4 years, 8 months, and 8 days creditable
service and 10 days lost time.

12.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 6a(1) of the
regulation 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.

13.  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 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.  During the period of time in question,
similar psychiatric conditions were 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 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.

14.  There is no indication that the applicant ever applied to the Army
Discharge Review Board.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in
compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural
errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge
directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the
facts of the case.

2.  Absent convincing evidence that, at the time of the discharge or the
behavior that led to the 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 does
nothing to demonstrate an error or an injustice in the discharge.

3.  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.
4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 8 December 1972; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 7 December 1975.  The applicant 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 timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JRM___  __WDP _  __RLD__  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.




                                  ______________________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR                                      |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            | 20050802                               |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19721208                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-212.                             |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.000                                 |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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