RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        21 June 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070002999


      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.

|     |Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano          |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Sherri V. Ward                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Richard T. Dunbar             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. David W. Tucker               |     |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 that
his general, under honorable conditions, discharge (GD) be upgraded to an
honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the original Board decision was
not based on his whole military record and that his medical records, which
are crucial, were overlooked.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored letter in support of his
request.

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
AR20060008268, on 23 January 2007.

2.  During the original review of the case, the Board determined that the
applicant was properly and equitably discharged and that the GD he received
was appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  The Board found no
evidence in the military records provided that showed the applicant was
stabbed, beaten, or left for dead while he was on leave, as he claimed or
that supported his contention that his separation was racially motivated.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored letter in support of his
reconsideration request , in which he states that he disagrees with the
Board's decision because it was not based on his whole military record.  He
claims his military medical record was overlooked and they are crucial to
his contention that he was not given fair consideration in 1969.  He states
his stabbing and beating played a big part in his actions and behavior, but
was never considered in his court-martial or in the discharge process.  He
claims he is told his stabbing and beating are the direct causes for his
service connected Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and it is strange
that no record of these events, which occurred in Richmond, Virginia in
1968, while he was stationed at Fort Lee, Virginia can be found.  He claims
he is now 100 percent disabled for PTSD and for a debilitating brain
hemorrhage, which is directly related to his chronic mental problems, which
are related to the 1968 stabbing.  He states he has been under psychiatric
care because of these incidents for over thirty years, and while in 1970,
his problems did not have a name, they were later defined as PTSD.  He
states that had he known better, he would have applied sooner.
4.  The applicant further states that in June or July 1968, he was
stationed at Fort Lee, Virginia, while he was on an authorized leave in
Richmond, Virginia, he was severely beaten and stabbed by several young
men, which has caused mental and emotional problems for him since the date
of the incident.  He claims at the time, a police and medical report
existed, and he was sent home on convalescent leave.  He states that when
he returned to duty, he was placed on orders for Germany.  He indicates
that it is troubling that no record of these incidents could be found in
his records.  He questions how the Board can fairly perform its
responsibility if the whole record cannot be viewed.  He states that in the
denial letter, he got the impression that he is making up this story, and
he now feels, as he did at the time, that the Army system is incompetent
and prejudiced toward people of color.  He states he was never given a fair
chance in the Army because of this racist attitude and now several years
later, these records don't exist.  He states it's hard to believe that an
organization which depends on the law, on evidence of records, that all
records should be maintained, secured and made available for possible later
usage.

5.  The applicant's record shows that he was inducted into the Army and
entered active duty on 19 March 1968.  He was trained in and awarded
military occupational specialty (MOS) 76A (Warehouseman).

6.  The applicant's Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows he
was promoted to private first class (PFC) on 16 October 1968, and that this
is the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty.

7.  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 non-judicial
punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice on four separate occasions between 29 may 1969 and 1
October 1969; and his conviction by a Special Court-Martial on 11 December
1969.  In addition, the applicant accrued 109 days of time lost as a result
of two periods of confinement and one period of being absent without leave
(AWOL).

8.  The applicant's Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) is void of any
medical treatment records that show the applicant was ever treated for stab
wounds or injuries suffered from a beating while serving on active duty, or
that he suffered from a disabling physical or mental medical condition that
would have supported his separation processing through medical channels.

9.  The applicant's record does contain Psychiatric Evaluation that was
completed on the applicant on 10 October 1969.  The examining psychiatrist
determined the applicant was alert and oriented in all spheres during the
examination; and that while he was immature and impulsive, he was not
suffering from any medical psychiatric illnesses at the time.  He diagnosed
the applicant with a passive-aggressive personality and cleared him for
separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.

10.  The applicant was processed for separation under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-212, for unsuitability based on habits and traits of
character manifested by his repeated commission of petty offenses.  His
case was considered at a hearing by a board of officers, at which the
applicant and his counsel were present.  The board of officers recommended
his separation for unsuitability with a GD.

11.  On 9 February 1970, the applicant was discharged under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unsuitability, and he received a
GD.  The separation document (DD Form 214) he was issued shows he completed
a total of 1 year, 7 months, and 4 days of creditable active military
service and that he had accrued 109 days of time lost due to AWOL and
confinement.

12.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, prescribed the policy
for the separation of enlisted members for unfitness and unsuitability.  A
GD or HD could be issued to members separating under unsuitability
provisions of the regulation, as warranted based on the overall record of
service.

13.  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.

14.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records)
prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records
by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Army Board for Correction
of Military Records (ABCMR).  Section I contains guidance the establishment
and functions of the ABCMR. It states, in pertinent part, that ABCMR
considers individual applications that are properly brought before it. In
appropriate cases, it directs or recommends correction of military records
to remove an error or injustice.  It further states that the ABCMR will
decide cases on the evidence of record, and that it is not an investigative
body.

15.  Paragraph 2-9 of the ABCMR regulation contains guidance on the burden
of proof.  It states, in pertinent part, that the ABCMR begins its
consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative
regularity that is that what the Army did was correct.  The applicant has
the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the
evidence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his discharge was unjust and was the
result of a mental disorder he has suffered from since being stabbed and
beaten in 1968 was carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient
evidence to support his claim.

2.  The veracity of the applicant's claim that he was stabbed and beaten in
Richmond, Virginia, in 1968, is not in question.  However, even if this is
true, the medical evidence on file in his record confirms he suffered from
no physical or mental disorder that would have warranted his separation
processing through medical channels, or that would have mitigated his
extensive record of misconduct that was the basis for his GD, as evidenced
by the 1969 Psychiatric Evaluation completed on him during his separation
processing.

3.  The applicant failed to provide any medical records or treatment
documents confirming his present PTSD condition; however, 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.  Therefore, absent any evidence that the
applicant suffered from a disabling mental condition at the time of his
discharge, this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to support an upgrade
of his discharge at this late date.

4.  The applicant is advised that the ABCMR is not an investigative body
and it considers each case properly brought before it using the evidence of
record and independent evidence submitted with the application.  It begins
its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative
regularity, which is that what the Army did was correct.  The applicant has
the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the
evidence.  Therefore, 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 or that would support amendment of the original Board decision
in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___SVW_  __RTD __  __DWT__  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 AR20060008268, dated 23 January 2007.





                                  _____Sherri V. Ward______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070002999                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |AR20060008268 - 2007/01/23              |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/06/21                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1970/02/09                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-212                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Unsuitability                           |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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