BOARD DATE:	 9 September 2010 

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100007677 


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 reconsideration of his request to upgrade his discharge.

2.  The applicant states his tour of duty in Vietnam led to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) along with other personal problems.  When he returned to the United States, his mind just wasn't the same as before he had gone to Vietnam.  The experience of living in a war zone was and still is very stressful.  He ended up being absent without leave (AWOL) for a period of time, which was also stressful.  After about a year and a half, he returned from being AWOL on his own and was sent to the stockade.  He did not receive much help while in the stockade.  He received counseling and was told that he would be confined for a year and receive a dishonorable discharge.  He was told it would be best for him to request a discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, saying that he wanted to be discharged for the good of the service, then have his discharge upgraded after a period of time.  That is how he ended up with a discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC).

3.  The applicant provides:

* a self-authored statement on Department of Veterans Affairs 
Form 21-4138 (Statement in Support of Claim), dated 16 October 2009
* a statement from his spouse, dated 15 October 2009
* records of a psychological assessment conducted by the Savannah Vet Center, dated 29 December 2008

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 AR20090003364 on 27 August 2009.

2.  The applicant submitted documentation which was not previously reviewed by the ABCMR; therefore, it is considered new evidence and as such warrants consideration by the Board.

3.  On 2 November 1967, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman).

4.  On 23 March 1968, the applicant departed Fort Lewis, Washington, for duty in the Republic of Vietnam.  He was subsequently assigned for duty as a rifleman with the 505th Infantry Regiment.  On or about 10 April 1969, the applicant departed the Republic of Vietnam for duty as a drill sergeant at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.

5.  On 2 June 1972, charges were preferred under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for violation of Article 86, AWOL, during the period from on or about 2 June 1970 to on or about 31 May 1972.

6.  On 6 June 1972, after consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights and options, the applicant submitted a formal request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10.  He acknowledged he had been advised of and understood his rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, that he could receive a discharge UOTHC which would deprive him of many or all of his benefits as a veteran, and that he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received a discharge UOTHC.

7.  On 16 June 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be issued DD Form 258A (Undesirable Discharge Certificate).  On 21 June 1972, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  He had completed a total of 2 years, 7 months, and 21 days of creditable active duty service and had accrued 734 days of lost time due to AWOL and pre-trial confinement.

8.  The applicant provides a statement from his spouse.  Her statement shows she met him just after his return from Vietnam.  She states he was very wild and disturbed at the time because of his experiences in combat and that he has ongoing mental, physical, and emotional problems because of those experiences.  She indicates he was exposed to Agent Orange during his service in Vietnam and implies that his exposure caused throat and colon cancer.

9.  The records of a psychological assessment by the Savannah Vet Center show the applicant met the criteria for chronic and severe PTSD.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial at any time after the charges have been preferred.  A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier's separation specifically allows such characterization.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record does not support the applicant's request for reconsideration of his request to upgrade his discharge.

2.  The statements and psychological assessment provided by the applicant show he suffers from PTSD.  However, these documents neither show that he was incompetent at the time he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service, nor do they show procedural errors in the processing of his administrative separation.

3.  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 failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.

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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20090003364, dated 27 August 2009.



      __________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)                                         AR20100007677



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)