IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	  23 September 2008

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080012362 


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 award of the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he served honorably in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) with the 1st Brigade, 101st Airborne Division.  Upon his return from the RVN he suffered a psychotic breakdown and spent several months in a hospital recovering and was discharged.  After his discharge, he served in the Alabama Army National Guard (ALARNG). 

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge); a copy of his Honorable Discharge Certificate; and a copy of his National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, 
has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant served in the Regular Army from 5 August 1966 through 
22 October 1969.  He was trained in, awarded, and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11D (Light Weapons Infantryman).  He attained the grade of specialist four (SP4)/E-4.  He was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, chapter 5-8, due to physical disability, severance pay.

3.  The applicant served in the RVN from 25 February 1967 through 26 February 1968.  He performed duties as a light weapons infantryman with the 101st Airborne Division.  He was then assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

4.  A review of the applicant's record shows that on 12 July 1968, a special court-martial convicted the applicant of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 
15 June – 27 June 1968.  The resultant sentence included a reduction in grade to private/E-1, a forfeiture of $73.00 per month for 3 months, and confinement at hard labor for 4 months (suspended for 4 months).   

5.  On 9 December 1968, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for assaulting a sergeant/E-5 by striking him with his fists.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $20.00 pay. 

6.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that he also went AWOL from 30 April –
8 May 1968, and 2 – 11 June 1968.  He went AWOL again on or about
5 September 1968, and on 8 October 1968, he was apprehended by Military police at Fort McClellan for a uniform violation.  He was visiting his girlfriend.  After he was placed in the police vehicle, the applicant shot himself in the abdomen and was transported to the hospital for treatment.  A review of his DA Form 2820 (Statement by Accused or Suspect Person) shows that when asked whether he considered himself mentally sound when he inflicted the gunshot wound, the applicant indicated that he knew what he was doing when he shot himself.  He also indicated that he had been depressed, that he disliked the Army intensely, although he did not start disliking the Army so much until after his return from the RVN.  

7.  On 4 March 1969, the applicant underwent a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).  His MEB Narrative Summary indicates that during his hospital stay, the applicant appeared to be moderately depressed; his depression rapidly lifted after he began to participate in ward activities.  He was found to be a passive-

aggressive individual who would justify unacceptable behavior on a rather 
paranoid basis.  He began to present difficulties in terms of ward management in that he refused to go along with what was asked of him and on one occasion struck a corpsman who had asked him to get out of bed in the morning.  It was felt he was able to control himself but simply did not take responsibility for his actions.  He was found mentally competent for pay purposes and had the capacity to understand the nature of, and to cooperate in, physical evaluation board (PEB) proceedings, and was not considered a danger to himself or others. He was diagnosed with a reaction, psychotic depressive, acute, severe, treated and in remission.  He was recommend for a PEB and transferred to the Medical Holding Company to PEB proceedings.

8.  On 2 May 1969, the applicant underwent a PEB.  He was found unfit due to right knee synovitis and an acute psychotic depressive reaction, treated and in remission, and then considered "slight".  It was noted that he had a long history of difficulty in dealing with feelings, particularly feelings of anger.  He also gave a history of a moderate degree of difficulty in forming reasonably warm, strong, interpersonal relationships.  He was recommended for discharge by reason of physical disability, severance pay.  

9.  The DA Form 20 (Enlisted Personnel Record), Item 38 (Record of Assignments) lists the applicant's assignments and evaluates his conduct and efficiency for each assignment.  His DA Form 20 shows that he received ratings of "unknown" for the period 29 October 1968 – 22 October 1969 in conduct and efficiency.  For his other assignments, the conduct and efficiency blocks are blank.  A review of his record revealed no evidence that the applicant was disqualified for award of the AGCM.

10.  Army Regulation 672-5-1, in effect at the time, provides that the AGCM is awarded to individuals who have completed a qualified period of active duty enlisted service.  This period is 3 years except in those cases when the period for the first award ends with the termination of a period of Federal military service.  The enlisted person must have had all “excellent” conduct and efficiency ratings and no convictions by a court-martial.  Ratings of "Unknown" for portions of the period under consideration are not disqualifying.  Service and efficiency ratings based upon academic proficiency of at least "Good" rendered subsequent to
22 November 1955 are not disqualifying.






DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is no evidence that the applicant was either recommended for or disqualified from receiving the AGCM.  However, his record shows that he received NJP, was convicted by a special court-martial, and had at least
3 periods of AWOL.  His conduct and efficiency were not rated.

2.  The applicant was discharged due to a physical disability, a knee condition and a psychotic reaction, which was considered to be in remission and with only a slight impairment.  It appears that his service was characterized as honorable because his mental condition was accepted as a mitigating factor; however, his record also shows that he was considered mentally competent by medical authorities and the applicant himself indicated that he was aware of what he was doing even when he shot himself.  It was noted during his hospital stay that he was able to control himself but simply did not take responsibility for his actions; that he would not cooperate with hospital management; and had a long history of difficulty in dealing with his feelings, especially anger.  

3.  Given the above, there is sufficient evidence to show that the applicant did not meet the criteria for award of the AGCM.  In reviewing his case, the applicant's  mitigating mental condition was weighed against his extensive history of misconduct, and it was determined that the applicant's overall conduct and efficiency did not meet the criteria for award of the AGCM. 

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant did not submit any evidence that would satisfy this requirement. 

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__X_____  ___X____  __X____  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 for correction of the records of the individual concerned.



      _________X____________
               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)                                         AR20080012362



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080012362



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1