IN THE CASE OF:	 

		BOARD DATE:	 22 February 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100020403 


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 earlier petition to upgrade his undesirable discharge (UD) to a general discharge (GD).  

2.  The applicant states during his 19 months of service in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) he had friends die and experienced many stressful events.  He claims he suffered a mental and physical break down and could no longer serve.  

3.  The applicant claims Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is a medically recognized anxiety disorder that can develop from seeing or experiencing an event that involves actual or threatened death or serious injury to which a person responds with intense fear, helplessness, or horror.  This condition is not uncommon among war veterans.  Unfortunately, before the medical community recognized PTSD as a viable emotional disorder most leaders and doctors thought it was simply nothing more than cowardice or personal weakness.  He states nobody, including himself, knew what he was suffering from, or how to deal with it, which is why he received a UD.  

4.  The applicant argues he did not ask for an upgrade of his discharge to obtain Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits.  He is appealing because he believes his discharge is unfair, inequitable and improper.  He completed          27 months of military service of which 19 months were performed in the RVN.  He provides a VA letter from a clinical director of the Pathfinder Clinic, Durango, Colorado, dated 24 August 2010, in which the clinical director diagnosed him with PTSD and a major depressive disorder.

5.  The applicant provides the following evidence in support of his request:

* Veterans Services Office, Durango, Colorado letter, dated 16 December 2010
* Pathfinder Clinic, Clinical Director letter, dated 24 August 2010
* United States Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) Letter, dated 10 August 2010
* 29-page self-authored Statement on Stressor Events
* Various military and medical records
* Congressional Inquiry Packet

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 AR20090005899 on 25 August 2009.

2.  The applicant provides a new argument that requires the Board's review.

3.  During the original review of the case, the Board found the evidence of record did not support the applicant’s contention that under current standards he would not have received the type of discharge he did.  The Board also found no evidence to support the applicant’s claim that he suffered from psychiatric problems (severe PTSD) related to his two tours in the RVN and that this impaired his ability to serve.  

4.  The applicant’s record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 October 1967, and he was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 05C (Radio/Teletype Operator) on 31 May 1968.  He was reclassified into and awarded MOS 57H (Cargo Handler) on 24 August 1968.  

5.  The applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows the applicant was promoted to specialist four (SP4)/E-4 on 24 August 1968, and this is the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty.  It also shows he was reduced to private first class (PFC)/E-3 for cause on 11 November 1969, and to private (PV1)/E-1) on 9 March 1970.  

6.  The applicant's DA Form 20 also shows he served in the RVN from 5 July 1968 through 12 January 1970, which included a voluntary 6-month extension of his foreign service tour, which he requested on 23 May 1969.  

7.  The record shows the applicant earned the following awards during his active duty tenure:
	
* National Defense Service Medal
* Vietnam Service Medal
* RVN Campaign Medal with Device 1960
* Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle (M-16) Bar
* Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle (M-14) Bar

8.  The record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  It does reveal a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on or about 8 August 1969, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from on or about 26 through 30 July 1969.  It also shows a special court-martial (SPCM) conviction on 9 December 1969, for violating Articles 86 and 92 of the UCMJ by violating a lawful general regulation on or about 
24 October 1969 by failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on or about 30 October 1969.  

9.  The record also shows in December 1969, the applicant’s unit commander recommended the applicant be barred from reenlistment.  The unit commander cited the applicant’s inability to adjust since his assignment to the unit in October 1969.  The unit commander further stated the applicant had become ineffective in the performance of his duty because of a complete disrespect for all authority.  The applicant had not responded to corrective measures nor had he been sufficiently motivated to take over his share of the work load.  The unit commander also cited the applicant’s disciplinary history which included his acceptance of an Article 15 for being AWOL in August 1969, and the offenses for which the applicant was pending an SPCM.  

10.  The applicant’s medical records document no treatment for a mentally or physically disabling condition that would have supported separation processing through medical channels.  A Standard Form (SF) 89 (Report of Medical History) that the applicant completed during his separation processing lists several medical conditions he had suffered from, but none are related to a psychiatric or mental condition and none medically disqualified him from further service.  

11.  The applicant’s record does not contain a separation packet containing the facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge processing; however, it does contain a properly-constituted DD Form 214 that identifies the authority and reason for the applicant’s separation.  

12.  On 13 March 1970, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unfitness (frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities).  The DD Form 214 he was issued a the time shows he completed 2 years, 4 months, and 10 days of creditable  active military service and that he accrued 4 days of lost time due to being AWOL.  It also shows he was issued a UD and he held the rank of PV1/E-1 at the time of discharge.

13.  The applicant provides a letter from a clinical director, dated 24 August 2010, which indicates he suffered from PTSD and a major depressive disorder.  The clinical director states it is his conclusion that the applicant has suffered from PTSD since the beginning of his first tour in the RVN and it became more severe during his second tour.  He opines that the applicant’s symptoms caused his behavior during his second tour and because the military did not recognize PTSD in those years he was discharged instead of being placed in a VA hospital.  The applicant also provides a letter from the Director, Army JSRRC in response to the applicant’s request for verification of many stressors.  The letter verifies one stressor.  This stressor is that a Soldier of the applicant’s unit committed suicide on 25 December 1968.  

14.  PTSD, an anxiety disorder, was not recognized as a psychiatric disorder until 1980 with the publishing of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).  While PTSD has only been categorized by psychiatrists as a distinct diagnosis since 1980, it has, as early as the Civil War, been described in psychological literature, variously labeled as shell shock, Soldier's heart, effect syndrome, combat fatigue, and traumatic neurosis.  During the period of time in question, similar psychiatric symptomatology was categorized as hysterical neurosis.  Although the current label of PTSD is of rather recent acceptance, the idea that catastrophes and tragedies can result in persistent emotional and psychological symptoms is common even among the lay public.  While PTSD was not recognized as a specific illness at the time the applicant was separated from the service, the fact that an individual might not be fit for further military service because of psychosis, psychoneurosis, or neurological disorders was outlined in Army Regulation 40-501 which was in effect at the time the applicant was separated.  The Army established standards and procedures for determining fitness for retention and utilized those procedures and standards in evaluating individuals at that time.  The specific diagnostic label given to an individual's condition a decade or more after his discharge from the service may change, but the change does not call into question the application of the existing fitness standards.

15.  Title 38, U.S. Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service.  The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned.  The VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings.  However, these changes do not call into question the application of the fitness standards assigned by proper military medical authorities during the applicant's separation processing.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his discharge should be upgraded because he was suffering from a PTSD at the time has been carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim. 

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unfitness (frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities).  Although there is no separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge processing, there is a properly-constituted DD Form 214 that confirms the authority and reason for the applicant’s discharge.  Absent any evidence of record or independent evidence provided by the applicant that shows an error or injustice in the separation process, this documents carries with it a presumption of Government regularity in the discharge process.  

3.  The evidence of record and independent evidence provided by the applicant fail to show he was suffering from a physically or mentally disabling condition at the time of his discharge that would have supported separation processing through medical channels.  Likewise, there is no evidence that would support a conclusion that he was suffering from a mental (PTSD or similar) disorder at the time that would have caused his misconduct and led to his discharge. 

4.  The VA clinical director diagnosis of PTSD and his opinion that the applicant was suffering from PTSD at the time of his discharge has also been carefully considered.  However, the medical evidence of record does not support this opinion.  A specific diagnostic label given to an individual's condition some
40 years after the fact does not call into question the application of existing fitness standards at the time of the applicant’s discharge.  

5.  The available evidence is not sufficient to an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.
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 AR20090005899, dated 25 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)                                         AR20100021692



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100020403



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1