RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           23 November 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004103155


      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. Fred Eichorn                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Robert J. Osborn              |     |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, reconsideration of his request for
an upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he suffered from a mental
condition that impaired his ability to serve and contributed to his
misconduct and that he now suffers from a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD)

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his
reconsideration request:  Self-Authored Statement; National Personnel
Records Center (NPRC) Letter; Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Letter,
dated 4 June 2003; Mental Health and Colorado Department of Corrections,
Cognitive Behavioral Core Curriculum Completion Certificate; 15 September
2003 Court-Order Directing Release of 1997 Psychological Evaluation; 8 May
1997 Psychological Evaluation; VA Letters Regarding Medical Records
Release; 1983 Fitness to Stand Trial Psychological Evaluation; and VA PTSD
Day Hospital Director, Eastern Colorado Health Care Review.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were
summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number
AR2002067039, on 23 July 2002.

2.  The applicant’s military record shows he entered active duty on 6
October 1977.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational
specialty (MOS)
12B (Combat Engineer) and the highest rank he attained while serving on
active duty was private first class (PFC).

3.  The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant
achievement or service warranting special recognition.  It does reveal a
disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment
(NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ) on the following four separate occasions for the offense(s)
indicated:  6 February 1979, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 9
through 15 January 1979; 16 March 1979, for being AWOL from 9 through 18
January 1979 and from 17 February through 12 March 1979; 24 April 1979, for
being disrespectful in language toward a noncommissioned officer (NCO); and
2 July 1979, for being disrespectful in language toward a commissioned
officer.

4.  The record further shows that the applicant underwent a mental status
evaluation on 15 March 1979, which found no mental defects.

5.  On 16 July 1979, the applicant departed AWOL from his unit at Fort
Stewart, Georgia.  He remained away until returning to military control on
21 August 1979.

6.  On 23 August 1979, the applicant underwent a separation physical
examination, which included a mental status evaluation.  There were no
disabling medical or mental conditions found and the applicant was cleared
for separation/retention by competent medical authority.

7.  On 28 August 1979, a court-martial charge was preferred against the
applicant based on his being AWOL from 16 July through 21 August 1979.  The
applicant consulted with legal counsel and subsequently voluntarily
requested discharge, in lieu of trial by court-martial.

8.  On 24 September 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
request for discharge and directed that he receive an UD.  On 1 October
1979, the applicant was discharge accordingly.  At the time of his
discharge, he had completed a total of 1 year, 9 months and 22 days of
creditable active military service and accrued 67 days of time lost due to
AWOL.

9.  In its original findings, the ABCMR found no evidence indicating the
applicant suffered from a disabling medical or mental condition at the time
of his discharge and concluded that his discharge was proper, equitable and
accurately reflected the overall character of his service.

10.  The medical documents provided by the applicant indicate that in 1983
he was diagnosed with Paranoid Disorder and in 1993, he was diagnosed with
a reactive attachment disorder of childhood psychotic disorder and
antisocial personality disorder.  Both evaluations were addressing the
applicant’s mental health condition subsequent to his discharge and related
to his ability to stand trial and participate in civilian legal
proceedings.

11.  The applicant also provides a series of communications in which he was
attempting to establish that he suffered from a PTSD that resulted from his
experiences on active duty.  This includes a letter from the VA, Eastern
Colorado Health Care System, Director, PTSD ) Day Hospital, dated 10
December 2003.  This letter in responding to an inquiry from the applicant,
states that a PTSD can have a delayed onset, meaning years can pass between
the time of the event and the time the person develops the disorder.

12.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement,
or Separation) establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System
(PDES) and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply
in determining whether a soldier is unfit because of physical disability to
reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.


13.  Chapter 3 of the physical evaluation regulation provides guidance on
presumptions of fitness.  It states that the mere presence of impairment
does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical
disability.  In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree
of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the
soldier reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office,
grade, rank, or rating.

14.  PTSD, an anxiety disorder, was recognized as a psychiatric disorder in
1980 with the publishing of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM).  The condition is described in the current DSM-IV, pages
424 through 429.  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.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contentions that his discharge should be upgraded
because he suffered from a mental condition that impaired his ability to
serve and based on his suffering from a PTSD and the supporting medical
documents he provided were carefully considered.  However, an insufficient
evidentiary basis has been found to support the requested relief.

2.  As indicated in the Board’s original conclusions in this case, the
processing of the applicant's voluntary request for separation under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the
service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and
in conformance with applicable regulations.  The applicant voluntarily
requested discharge after appropriate and proper consultation with a
military lawyer.  All requirements of law and regulation were met, the
rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation
process and his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of
service.
3.  The available military medical evidence gives no indication that he
suffered from a physical or mental condition that impaired his ability to
serve at the time.  Further, he was mentally and physically cleared for
separation/retention by competent medical authority during his separation
processing.

4.  The medical documentation provided by the applicant does not confirm a
diagnosis of PTSD, and even if they did, a specific diagnostic label given
to his condition now, years after his separation, does not call into
question the medical findings rendered at the time of his separation.  As a
result, the evidence presented by the applicant does not support the
requested relief.

5.  As the applicant was informed in the original Board decisional
document, 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 any new evidence or argument that would
satisfy this requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___RJO _   __FE___  __JTM___  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 to amend the decision of
the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR2002067039, dated 23 July 2002.




            ____Fred Eichorn________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004103155                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |2002/07/23   AR2002067039               |
|DATE BOARDED            |2004/11/23D                             |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1979/10/01                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |In Lieu of Court-Martial                |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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