RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        22 September 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050000958


      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. Judy L. Blanchard             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James E. Anderholm            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Bernard P. Ingold             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Flynn              |     |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, that his discharge be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he made some wrong decisions
because he was suffering from "Post Traumatic Syndrome (PTSD), which
occurred after serving in Vietnam from 1966 to 1967.  He states, that he
was having bad dreams and nightmares while serving in Vietnam and lost his
mother during that same time - frame.  When he was assigned to a unit at
Fort Knox, Kentucky, he was still having bad dreams and nightmares.  He
really did not know what was going on, or how to get help, or if there was
help for him.  All he knew was to run from his problems, and get away from
people.  After he was released from the Army, he was still having dreams
and nightmares.  He is presently seeing a doctor for depression and
anxiety.  He is also attending counseling sessions for PTSD.  He was
married in 1971, and went to work as a coal miner and as a truck driver.
He states, that he is retired now and his character has changed.  He is
respected in his community and does not have any criminal offenses.  He
wants this Board to take into consideration his time of honorable service;
his civilian status and character and change his last discharge to general
under honorable conditions.

3.  The applicant provides character references and a self-authored
personal appeal in support of this application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or
injustice, which occurred on 6 March 1969, the date of his separation from
active duty.  The application submitted in this case is dated 28 December
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’s record shows that he initially enlisted in the Regular
Army on 29 May 1962.   He was trained in, awarded and served in military
occupational specialty (MOS) 36K10 (Field Wireman), the highest rank he
attained was pay grade E-4.  He served 4 years, 11 months and 28 days of
creditable service, received two honorable discharges, and served in
Vietnam from 3 November 1966 to 4 September 1967.  The applicant’s record
shows that he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam
Service Medal, the Vietnam Campaign Medal and one Overseas Service Bar.

4.  On 2 April 1968, the applicant reenlisted for a period of 3 years.

5.  On 23 August 1968, the applicant was convicted by a Special Court-
Martial (SPCM) of two specifications of being absent without leave (AWOL)
from on or about 10 June 1968 until on or about 27 June 1968 and from on or
about
30 June 1968 until on or about 16 July 1968.  The resultant sentence
included
60 days restriction and reduction to pay grade E-3.

6.  On 25 November 1968, the applicant was convicted by a SPCM of being
AWOL from on or about 29 August 1968 until on or about 23 October 1968 and
for breaking restriction.  The resultant sentence included confinement at
hard labor for 5 months and forfeiture of $70.00 per month for 5 months.

7.  On 20 January 1969, the applicant while assigned to the US Army
Correctional Holding Detachment, located at Fort Knox, Kentucky, was
convicted by a SPCM of being AWOL from on or about 10 December 1968 until
on or about 19 December 1968 and for violating the conditions of his
parole.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months.

8.  On 24 February 1969, the applicant was advised by the company commander
that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-212, by reason of unfitness.

9.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel and after being advised of
the basis for the contemplated separation, its effects and the rights
available to him, he waived his right to consideration of his case by a
board of officers, personal appearance before a board of officers, and his
right to counsel.  The applicant stated in effect, that he wants out of the
service and that he would even take a “212” just to get out of the service.
 The applicant also claims that he had financial problems at home.

10.  On 28 February 1969, the separation authority directed the applicant’s
separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness
and that he receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  On 26 April
1969, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 (Armed
Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) issued to him
at the time, confirms the applicant completed a total of 5 years, 2 months,
and 18 days of creditable active military service and that he accrued a
total of 285 days of time lost due to AWOL.

11.  The applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) contains no
medical records nor does the applicant provides any medical documents that
indicate he was treated for or suffered from a psychologically or medically
disqualifying condition while he was on active duty, or at the time of his
discharge.

12.  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), and is described in pages 424 through 429 of the current
DSM.  However, at the time of the applicant’s discharge, 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.

13.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority, established the policy, and prescribed the procedures for
separating members for unfitness.  An undesirable discharge was normally
considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions.

14.  On 16 October 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determined
that the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable and it voted to
deny the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

15.  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 contends that his discharge should be upgraded to a
general discharge because he was and still is suffering from PTSD a medical
condition that impaired his ability to serve and consideration should also
be given to him because of his two prior honorable services and good post
service conduct.

2.  The applicant’s contentions and the third-party statements provided by
the applicant that attest to his good character and post service were
carefully considered.  However, these factors are not found to be
sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.

3.  The evidence of record provides no indication that the applicant was
ever treated for or suffered from a disqualifying psychological or medical
condition while he was on active duty.  Although the applicant has now been
diagnosed with PTSD, this specific diagnostic label given to the applicant
more than three decades after his separation does not call into question
the application of then existing fitness standards that were applied at the
time of his discharge.

4.  The record confirms that all requirements of law and regulation were
met and the applicant’s rights were fully protected throughout the
separation process.  The record further shows the applicant’s discharge
accurately reflects his overall record of undistinguished service for that
period of service.

5.  Based on this record of indiscipline, the applicant's service clearly
does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty
for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to either a general or
an honorable discharge.

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

7.  Records show the applicant exhausted his administrative remedies in
this case when his case was reviewed by the ADRB on 16 October 1979.  As a
result, the time for him to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice to this Board expired on 15 October 1982.  However, he failed to
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

__JEA   _  __BPI ___  __MJF __  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.




                                     ____James E. Anderholm______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050000958                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050922                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)          |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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