IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	      26 AUGUST 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090004390 


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 correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), ending 3 October 1983, to delete military occupational specialty (MOS) 63Y1O (Track Vehicle Mechanic); to show that he had qualified as an expert with the M-16 rifle; to show his rank as specialist four, pay grade E-4; and to show that he suffered from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

2.  The applicant states that he was never trained or worked in MOS 63Y1O.  He shot his rifle on more than one occasion with an expert rating.  Showing his rank as private first class, pay grade E-3 is an injustice.  Very little was known about PTSD at the time of his discharge.  With modern technology, he would have been diagnosed and treated for PTSD.  The applicant contends that he was suffering from PTSD as a result of service related to duties during top secret missions while assigned to the 2nd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division.  He started self-medicating his PTSD with heavy drinking.  He voluntarily entered Eisenhower Medical Center at Fort Gordon, Georgia, in June 1982, for alcohol detoxification.  With what is known today about PTSD, he contends that he would have been diagnosed with PTSD and the circumstances surrounding his nonjudicial punishment would never have happened.  He is only asking for what is right; a correction of something that should never have happened.  If he had stayed in the Army an additional 4 months, he would have regained specialist four.  



3.  The applicant provides, in support of his application, copies of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) ending 12 November 1976; DD Form 214 ending 3 October 1983; DA Form 3637 (Inpatient Treatment Record) dated 18 August 1983 with attached Medical Record Report prepared on 
23 August 1983;  three Certificates of Achievement dated in July and November 1980 and in November 1981; DA Form 873 (Certificate of Clearance and/or Security Determination) dated 19 June 1980; and a Department of the Navy certificate showing that the applicant had completed the 36 hour course of instruction in Alcohol Safety Education, dated 23 February 1983.

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.  On 18 February 1976, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  Upon completion of the Basic Combat Training course at Fort Dix, New Jersey, he was assigned for advanced individual training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 35G (Biomedical Equipment Specialist).  On or about 30 August 1976, he was released from this training due to academic failure. 

3.  On 21 September 1976, the applicant entered the Track Vehicle Mechanic Course (MOS 63Y) at Fort Knox, Kentucky.  He was dropped from this course on 5 October 1976, prior to completion, due to an allergic condition to dust.  On 
19 October 1976, the applicant was medically reevaluated.  His physical profile was dropped and he was reenrolled in the Track Vehicle Mechanic Course.  That same day, he was dismissed from the course because the dust was bothering him.  

4.  On 26 October 1976, the applicant's commander initiated action to separate him from the service due to his inability to adjust socially and emotionally to the military; due to his poor attitude; due to his inability and unwillingness to accept and perform his duties; and due to his feeling that a discharge was best for him.

5.  On 9 November 1976, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate. 

6.  Accordingly, on 12 November 1976, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions and issued a General Discharge Certificate.  He had attained the rank of private, pay grade E-2 and had completed 8 months and 
25 days of creditable active service.  There is no evidence showing that he had completed any advanced individual training or was awarded an MOS during this period of active duty service.

7.  Item 9 (Awards, Decorations and Campaigns) of the applicant's DA Form 
2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record), reviewed on 3 May 1976, shows that he had qualified as a marksman with the M-16 rifle.

8.  Item 16a (Primary Specialty Number and Title) of the applicant's DD Form 214 effective 12 November 1976 indicates he was awarded MOS 63C (Track Vehicle Mechanic).  Item 26 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of this same DD Form 214 shows that he had qualified as a marksman with the M-16 rifle.

9.  The applicant requested and was granted a hearing before the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for upgrade of his discharge.  He was scheduled to appear before the ADRB on 4 June 1979 but failed to appear.  Accordingly, the case was evaluated on the evidence of record.  The ADRB determined that the applicant's discharge was proper and equitable and denied his request for an upgrade.

10.  On 13 March 1979, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years.  He was assigned to Goodfellow Air Force Base, Texas, for training in MOS 98C (Electronic Warfare/Signal Intelligence Analyst).  There is no evidence of record showing that he successfully completed this course of instruction or was awarded MOS 98C.

11.  On 9 May 1979, the applicant departed Goodfellow Air Force Base, Texas, for assignment at Fort Gordon, Georgia.  On 22 May 1979, he was enrolled in the Telecommunications Center Operator Course (MOS 72E).  Records indicate that he did not successfully complete this 6-week course of study.

12.  On 25 July 1979, the applicant departed Fort Gordon, Georgia for assignment in the Federal Republic of Germany.

13.  On 14 August 1979, the applicant was assigned for duty as a track vehicle mechanic with the 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment.   
14.   On 15 April 1980, he was reassigned to the 2nd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division for duty as a track vehicle mechanic.

15.  On 5 June 1980, the applicant was promoted to specialist four, pay 
grade E-4.

16.  On 1 September 1980, he was awarded primary MOS 63Y.

17.  Item 9 of his DA Form 2-1, reviewed on 5 January 1982, shows that on 
26 November 1980, he had qualified as a marksman with the M-16 rifle.

18. On 22 April 1981, he was awarded primary MOS 64C (Motor Transport Operator).  MOS 63Y became an additional MOS.

19.  On 14 November 1981, the applicant returned to the United States.  He was assigned for duty as a 63Y with the 2nd Battalion, 60th Infantry Regiment, located at Fort Lewis, Washington.

20.  On 10 May 1982, the applicant departed Fort Lewis, Washington, for advanced individual training in MOS 26Y (Satellite Communications Equipment Repairer).  He reported to this course on 4 June 1982.  There is no evidence showing that he successfully completed this course of study.

21.  On 14 July 1983, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for falsifying a sick slip with intent to defraud.  The punishment included reduction to pay grade E3, a forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for 1 month and 14 days extra duty.

22.  During the period from 18 to 23 August 1983, the applicant was hospitalized and underwent a psychiatric evaluation.  He was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with depressed mood and with a passive-aggressive personality disorder.  The psychiatrist found him to meet the medical induction and retention standards and that he did not have a psychiatric disease or defect which warranted disposition through medical channels.  The applicant's condition and problems were not amenable to further hospitalization, treatment, transfer, disciplinary action, training or reclassification to another type of military duty.  Further rehabilitative efforts were unlikely to develop him into a satisfactory member of the military.  The psychiatrist recommended that the applicant be separated expeditiously.

23.  On 13 September 1983, the applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.
24.  On 13 September 1983, the applicant consulted with counsel and elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.  He was accordingly REFRAD on 
3 October 1983.

25.  On 21 September 1983, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for release from active duty (REFRAD) and directed that the applicant's characterization of service be under honorable conditions and that he be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve.  He was accordingly discharged on 3 October 1983.

26.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander’s judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.

27.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has an impairment rated at less than 30 percent disabling.  It further provides at section 1201 for the physical disability retirement of a member who has an impairment rated at least 30 percent disabling.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his DD Form 214 should be corrected to delete MOS 63Y1O; to show that he had qualified as an expert with the M-16 rifle; to show his rank as specialist four, pay grade E-4; and to show that he suffered from PTSD.

2.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant did not successfully complete an MOS producing course during his first term of active duty service.  Therefore, his DD Form 214, ending on 12 November 1976, should be corrected to delete "63CO Track Vehicle Mech" from Item 16a.

3.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was awarded MOS 63Y1O on 1 September 1980 and MOS 64C1O on 22 April 1981.  The applicant's 
DD Form 214 ending on 3 October 1983 shows in Item 11 (Primary Specialty Number, Title and Years and Months in Specialty) these same two MOS's.  Furthermore, the years and months recorded on the DD Form 214 agree with the dates of awarding shown on his DA Form 2-1.  Therefore, the applicant's request to delete or change any of the data in Item 11 of this DD Form 214 should be denied.
4.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant qualified as a marksman during both his first and second term of service.  There is no evidence supporting his contention that he ever qualified as an expert with the M-16 rifle.  Therefore, his request to show that he qualified as an expert with the M-16 rifle should be denied.

5.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was reduced from pay grade E-4 to E-3 on 14 July 1983 for misconduct.  There is no evidence showing that he was subsequently promoted.  Therefore, his request to restore his rank should be denied.

6.  The available evidence shows that the applicant suffered from an adjustment disorder with depressed mood and with a passive-aggressive personality disorder at the time of his last separation from active duty.  There is no available evidence showing that the applicant suffered from PTSD as a result of his military service.  Therefore, his request to correct his records to show that he suffered from PTSD should be denied.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

____X____  ___X_____  __X______  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by deleting "63CO Track Vehicle Mech" from Item 16a of his DD Form 214 ending on 12 November 1976 and entering "None."

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to correction of his DD Form 214 ending on 3 October 1983 to show a marksmanship qualification as expert; a 


rank as specialist four; an MOS other than what is already recorded; or that he suffered from PTSD.



      _______ _   _XXX______   ___
               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)                                         AR20090004390





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090004390



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1