IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	       19 August 2008

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080011167 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that his general discharge be affirmed.

2.  The applicant states, through his Member of Congress, that the applicant served his country honorably from the date of his initial enlistment on 17 March 1969 through his tour in Vietnam ending 11 January 1971.  He is a decorated war veteran, receiving the Bronze Star Medal and the Army Commendation Medal for valor.  While his military occupational specialty is described as “clerk typist,” his actual job while in Vietnam was with Graves Registration.  He spent his year there processing killed-in-action casualties, which included at times pulling their bodies from the battlefield; caring for them prior to shipment home; and processing paperwork to accompany them.  

3.  The applicant’s Member of Congress states that the applicant did not fare  well as he honored and cared for the Army’s dead Soldiers.  To deal with the trauma – which later became known as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), he self-medicated with alcohol and drugs.  Coming from an unstable family, he lacked the knowledge and skills to deal with his situation.  He felt it paramount that he maintain the façade of the strong, invincible Soldier while he was in fact falling apart inside and resorting to addictive substances to hold himself together. He did what most addictive personalities are skilled at doing, and that was to hide what turned into drug- and alcohol-dependence for as long as possible.

4.  The applicant’s Member of Congress states that the applicant managed to  get through his tour in Vietnam, but on his return home, in an unconstrained situation, one plagued by problems with which he was unable to deal, he was no longer able to maintain his façade and abandoned his continued commitment to the Army by going absent without leave (AWOL) for two extended periods.  The idea of going back into war was traumatizing for him and he could not deal with it on any level.  While the applicant blamed family issues as the catalyst for his AWOL, it was in truth fueled by depression, anxiety, and what the Member of Congress strongly believes at that time was, and has since been diagnosed as, PTSD directly related to the trauma the applicant experienced in Vietnam.  

5.  The applicant’s Member of Congress states that the applicant indicated that his health was “good” on his separation physical form, but that statement was, in fact, clearly referring to his physical condition, not his mental condition.  The same form also shows that he checked “depression or excessive worry” in the affirmative.  This provides evidence that in 1972 the applicant was dealing with these conditions.  

6.  The applicant provides the nine (A through I) attachments and three testimonials (J through L) listed on an attachment to his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous considerations of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AC81-09100 on         9 June 1982 and in Docket Number AR20050009017 on 2 February 2006.

2.  The applicant was born on 21 December 1950.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 March 1969.  On 5 November 1969, he requested discharge and immediate reenlistment with assignment to Vietnam.  On 17 November 1969, he was honorably discharged.  On 18 November 1969, he immediately reenlisted.

3.  The applicant arrived in Vietnam and was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 196th Infantry Brigade on 21 January 1970.  His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he performed duties in military occupational specialty 71B (Clerk Typist) with principal duties as a clerk typist.

4.  Orders dated 4 July 1970 awarded the applicant the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious achievement for the period 1 February 1970 through         31 May 1970.  Orders dated 13 October 1970 awarded the applicant the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious achievement for the period 1 June 1970 through         3 September 1970.

5.  The applicant was promoted to Specialist Five, E-5, on 6 September 1970.
6.  The applicant apparently extended his tour in Vietnam.  He returned to the States on leave around December 1970.  

7.  On 23 August 1971, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 12 January 1971 to 20 July 1971.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to pay grade E-4 (suspended), a forfeiture of pay, and a reprimand.

8.  The applicant went AWOL on 17 September 1971 and returned to military control on 15 May 1972.  Charges were preferred against him for this AWOL period.

9.  On 23 May 1972, the applicant underwent a separation physical examination and was found qualified for separation.  On his Standard Form 93 (Report of Medical History), dated 23 May 1972, he indicated that he was in good health.  In item 11 (Have you ever had or have you now), he checked the “yes” block to “Depression or excessive worry.”

10.  On 25 May 1972, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He indicated in his request that he understood he might be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate; that he might be deprived of many or all Army benefits; that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration; and that he might be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  He also acknowledged that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an undesirable discharge.  

11.  The applicant elected to submit a statement on his behalf.  He stated he was performing duties as a company clerk in Germany. He did not like Germany or the Army at all so he took a short reenlistment in order to get out of Germany and to go to Vietnam.  

12.  The applicant stated that in Vietnam he was a brigade casualty clerk.  It was in Vietnam that he became involved with drugs.  He was using practically every type of drug.  His attitude towards the Army was getting worse.  

13.  The applicant stated that after he completed his tour in Vietnam he extended for 6 more months.  He took a 30-day leave and discovered that his mother had experienced a nervous breakdown and his girlfriend had married another man and was pregnant.  Those things made him even more discouraged and he felt the Army was partly responsible.  He was still doing any kind of drug he could get his hands on and was also drinking heavily.  On 1 February 1971, he turned himself in.  He was ordered to report back to his unit in Vietnam.  He was not going to go back, so instead he went AWOL again.  He turned himself in after      6 months and told them he had extreme family problems.  He received a field grade Article 15, with a suspended reduction and a fine.  He thought that since he had been given a chance and because of the fact his wife was pregnant, he should try and stick it out in the Army.  He still hated every day in the Army and he just could not readjust to the military.  He once again started taking drugs and drinking excessively, any way that he could escape the reality of being in the Army.  

14.  The applicant stated that he went AWOL again in September 1971 and remained gone for 8 more months.  During those 8 months he got off drugs and stopped drinking some.  While he was gone his wife had a baby.  He now had a 6-week old son.  He was advised by his civilian attorney and Senator that he should return to military control and request that he be discharged, so he turned himself in to Fort Knox, KY, in May 1972.  He still hated the Army and knew that he would never adjust again.  

15.  On 31 May 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge.

16.  On 7 June 1972, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge and a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He had served 2 years, 2 months and 16 days of total active service with 430 days of lost time due to two periods of AWOL (189 days and 241 days).

17.  There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant requested a hardship discharge prior to his discharge.

18.  On 29 January 1975, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request for an honorable discharge.  

19.  The applicant provided a Lakin Hospital Admission History, dated June 1976, that noted he was hospitalized for his alcoholism and drug problem on     22 June 1976 on a voluntary basis.  This Admissions History noted that he started to drink at the age of 13 and had been drinking almost every day for      10 years.  He admitted using pot (i.e., marijuana) since 1971.  “While in Vietnam for one year, his drinking was quite heavy, almost every night.”  His Current Mental Status noted that his mood appeared to be depressed.

20.  With one of his earlier applications, the applicant provided a statement, dated 22 July 1976, from a woman who had known him for about 10 years.  The woman stated that before the applicant joined the Army he was strictly a social drinker.  He began drinking quite heavily during the year he spent in Vietnam.  

21.  The applicant provided a Case Development Log, dated 3 September 1976, that noted he had “been socially deprived in that he did not have a stable homelife or a good high school education.”

22.  On 24 May 1977, the applicant's records were reviewed under the provisions of the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP), and it was determined he had met the primary criteria for an upgrade having earned appropriate decorations and completed a full tour in support of Southeast Asia operations.  A general discharge was directed following review under the provisions of Public Law      95-126. 

23.   On 17 July 1978, the ADRB did not affirm the applicant’s general discharge. 

24.  On or about 18 July 1979, the ADRB re-reviewed the applicant's case as required by Public Law 95-126 and affirmed his SDRP discharge upgrade. 

25.  The applicant provided a Veterans Administration (VA) Form 10-1415 (Problem List) that contains an entry, dated 10 April 1983, that indicates he had an anxiety disorder.

26.  The applicant provided a Psychiatric Admission History, dated 6 August 1984, that shows he was diagnosed with PTSD; opiate dependence, continuous; and mixed personality disorder.  

27.  The applicant provided a Consult Request, printed on 20 February 2008, which shows he has been under a doctor’s care for heroin dependence.  He has been on a methadone maintenance program for many years for heroin addiction dating from his military service in Vietnam.

28.  The applicant provided an affidavit from his brother-in-law, John.  John stated he met the applicant when the applicant was only 12 years old.  The applicant looked up to him like he was a big brother.  John later married the applicant’s sister.  He stated that the applicant wanted to be a Soldier and often said he wanted “to make something good of my life.”  After his training, the applicant was stationed in Germany.  John stated the applicant loved being in Europe and he may have spent his entire service there, but he volunteered to go to Vietnam.  The applicant did not tell anyone except John and John’s wife that he was going to Vietnam.  His mother’s health was very fragile and he did not want her to worry about him.  He told his family he was in Thailand, and his mother assumed he was safe in Thailand until the day the Army sent her a Bronze Star Medal citation.  That really took a toll on her health, and she had a nervous breakdown.  His father also had many health problems, including having had his legs amputated because of black lung disease.  

29.  John stated that there was not much communication with the applicant while he was in Vietnam.  What a shock they all had when after 13 months he finally came home.  When he came off the plane he reeked of alcohol.  That was not at all the young man John remembered.  The applicant could not stand to be in a crowd, and if he was he would either start trouble with someone or leave.  Many days the applicant thought he was in Vietnam.  His mother was so sick, and his father died shortly after his return home.  He had a younger brother who was also very ill.  That took an even heavier toll on the applicant.  During one of the applicant’s longest periods of AWOL he met a girl and she became pregnant and then he was a father.  John stated that he helped the applicant get back to Fort Knox where he turned himself in and requested a discharge.  The Army attorneys he was working with informed him that the Army would easily upgrade his discharge since he had such a good record in both Germany and Vietnam.

30.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, 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 appropriate.  At the time, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.  

31.  Public Law 95-126 provided, in pertinent part, for a "Relook Program."  All cases upgraded from under other than honorable conditions under the SDRP had to be relooked and affirmed or not affirmed under uniform standards.  One of the principal features of Public Law 95-126 was the addition of 180 days of continuous unauthorized absence to other reasons (e.g. conscientious objector, deserters) for discharge which act as a specific bar to eligibility for VA benefits. Such absence must have been the basis for discharge under other than honorable conditions and is computed without regard to expiration of term of service.

32.  The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), classifies PTSD as an Anxiety Disorder.  The essential feature of PTSD is the development of characteristic symptoms following exposure to an extreme traumatic stressor involving direct personal experience of an event that involves actual or threatened death or serious injury, or other threat to one’s physical integrity, or witnessing an event that involves death, injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of another person.  

33.  The DSM-IV states that the essential feature of Generalized Anxiety Disorder is excessive anxiety and worry, occurring more days than not for a period of at least 6 months, about a number of events or activities.  Generalized Anxiety Disorder very frequently co-occurs with Mood Disorders (e.g., Major Depressive Disorder), with other Anxiety Disorders; and with Substance-Related Disorders (e.g., Alcohol or Sedative Dependence or Abuse).  Anxiety is invariably present in PTSD.  Generalized Anxiety Disorder is not diagnosed if the anxiety occurs exclusively during the course of PTSD.

34.  The DSM-IV states that a Substance-Induced Anxiety Disorder is distinguished from Generalized Anxiety Disorder by the fact that a substance is judged to be etiologically related to the anxiety disturbance.  Anxiety Disorders can occur in association with intoxication with several classes of substances, including alcohol.  Anxiety Disorders can occur in association with withdrawal from several classes of substances, including alcohol.

35.  The DSM-IV states that the essential feature of Major Depressive Disorder  is a clinical course that is characterized by one or more Major Depressive Episodes.  Episodes of Substance-Induced Mood Disorder do not count toward  a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder.  The essential feature of Substance-Induced Mood Disorder is a prominent and persistent disturbance in mood that is judged to be due to the direct physiological effects of a substance.  The disturbance must not be better accounted for by a Mood Disorder that is not substance induced.  A subtype, Substance-Induced Mood Disorder with Depressive Features, is used if the predominant mood is depressed.

36.  The DSM-IV states that Mood Disorders can occur in association with intoxication with the following classes of substances:  alcohol; amphetamine and related substances; cocaine; hallucinogens; inhalants; opioids; phencyclidine and related substances; sedatives, hypnotics, and anxiolytics; and other or unknown substances.  Mood Disorders can occur in association with withdrawal from the following classes of substances:  alcohol; amphetamine and related substances; cocaine; sedatives, hypnotics, and anxiolytics; and other or unknown substances. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The contentions of the applicant’s Member of Congress have been carefully considered.  It is acknowledged that the evidence of record shows that the applicant served his country honorably from the date of his initial enlistment on 17 March 1969 through his tour in Vietnam ending 11 January 1971.  He was awarded the Bronze Star Medal and the Army Commendation Medal, although the awards were for meritorious achievement and not for valor.  There is no evidence of record to show that the applicant performed duties with Graves Registration, but neither is there evidence of record to contradict that assertion.  

2.  However, there is reasonable doubt as to whether it was the trauma of working Graves Registration that led the applicant to self-medicate with alcohol and drugs.  

3.  The applicant’s Member of Congress and the Case Development Log, dated  3 September 1976, noted the applicant came from an unstable family.  The Lakin Hospital Admission History, dated June 1976, noted that he started to drink at the age of 13 and had been drinking almost every day for 10 years.  That means he had been drinking almost every day since June 1966, when he was 15 years old. It appears that was not social drinking, and the difference between a 15 year old drinking almost every day and drinking “quite heavy, almost every night” while in Vietnam is not clearly understood.  

4.  If, as the applicant’s Member of Congress contended, the applicant had an addictive personality, it appears that his addictive personality manifested itself long before he arrived in Vietnam.  If, as contended, the applicant had an addictive personality, there is reasonable doubt that it was the trauma of working Graves Registration that led the applicant to use drugs while in Vietnam rather than just taking advantage of the easy availability of drugs there.  Since the applicant’s addictions, at least as to alcohol, appear to have started when he was about 15 years old, it appears that he might have correctly blamed family issues as the catalyst for his AWOL.  

5.  Not only did the applicant return to his already-admitted unstable family life, his family life worsened.  His mother’s already-fragile health worsened; his father died; his girlfriend married another man; and he found another girlfriend, married her, and they had a baby.  He continued behavior (i.e., drinking alcohol) that had started when he was 15 years, not when he served in Vietnam.

6.  There is also reasonable doubt that the applicant started taking drugs while   in Vietnam because of the trauma of working Graves Registration rather than simply because he did not like the Army.  He stated, when he requested discharge, that he did not like Germany or the Army at all so he reenlisted to go to Vietnam.  In Vietnam, he became involved with drugs and was using practically every type of drug, and his attitude towards the Army was getting worse.  He thought he should try and stick it out in the Army, but he still hated every day in the Army.  He once again started taking drugs and drinking excessively, any way that he could escape the reality of being in the Army.  But by his own admission, he had hated the Army since before he arrived in Vietnam. 

7.  It is true that the applicant’s separation physical examination form shows that he checked “depression or excessive worry” in the affirmative.  It is true that this form provides evidence that in 1972 the applicant was dealing with these conditions.  

8.  However, there is reasonable doubt that his “depression or excessive worry” was the result of his working Graves Registration.

9.  In the various documents available to the Board, the applicant admitted that he had been drinking since age 13 and heavily at least since age 15.  He admitted he was using practically every type of drug while in Vietnam, including marijuana and heroin in addition to alcohol.

10.  While the DSM-IV states that anxiety is invariably present in PTSD, it also states that Anxiety Disorders can occur in association with intoxication with or withdrawal from several classes of substances, including alcohol.  

11.  The DSM-IV also states that Mood Disorders (e.g., depression) can occur in association with intoxication with a number of classes of substances, including  alcohol and opioids (and possibly with whatever else the applicant might have been using.  Mood Disorders can also occur in association with withdrawal from a number of classes of substances including alcohol (and possibly with whatever else the applicant might have been using).

12.  On or about 18 July 1979, the ADRB affirmed the applicant’s SDRP discharge upgrade (a general discharge); however, there is sufficient doubt as to the reason for the applicant’s alcohol and drug use while in Vietnam as to not warrant further affirming his discharge upgrade by the ABCMR.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___xx___  ___xx___  ___xx___  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 AC81-09100 on 9 June 1982 and in Docket Number AR20050009017 on 2 February 2006.




      _______ _  xxxx____   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.



ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080011167





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080011167



10


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1