IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  17 March 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100023816 


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 a discharge upgrade for her deceased husband, a former service member (FSM), from "under conditions other than honorable" to "honorable."

2.  The applicant states the FSM was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) when he was discharged from the Army.  He was assigned a reentry eligibility code of RE-3 and could have returned to military service with a waiver.  She adds he was having nightmares, night sweats, and he was taking medication when he was released.  She also states he voluntarily and proudly served two tours of duty in Vietnam.  When he returned he was transported in buses with wire on the windows while people spit at him and called him a baby killer.  He had a hard time reconciling himself to this treatment for years.  He didn't realize just what that would do to him in later years.  He tried to get help with his health problems.  Then he had a heart attack and started looking into his health and the effects of Agent Orange.  His health was failing and last November he was diagnosed with small cell lung cancer.  He applied for benefits and was denied.  She and the FSM talked about what needed to be done to request a discharge upgrade, but he started having problems and could not manage to file the paperwork.  On 4 June 2010, the FSM died.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored letter, copies of the FSM's DD Forms 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), and a copy of the FSM's death certificate in support of her application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The FSM's military personnel records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 May 1968 for a period of 3 years.  He completed the training requirements and he was awarded military occupational specialty 12B (Combat Engineer).  The FSM served in Vietnam from 30 September 1968 to March 1970.  On 4 March 1970, he was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment after serving 1 year, 9 months, and 27 days of active honorable service.  On 5 March 1970, he reenlisted for a period of 4 years.  The highest grade he attained was pay grade E-5.  On 2 May 1970, the FSM was assigned to Fort Carson, Colorado.

2.  On 29 December 1970, the FSM received nonjudicial punishment for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 19 October 1970 to 17 December 1970.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $125.00 pay per month for 2 months, reduction to pay grade E-4, and 45 days of restriction and extra duty.  The second month of forfeiture and reduction to pay grade E-4 was suspended for 2 months.

3.  On 9 April 1971, the FSM was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 10 January 1971 to 20 March 1971.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 2 months and reduction to pay grade E-1.

4.  On 14 April 1972, court-martial charges were preferred against the FSM for being AWOL from 25 January 1972 to 20 March 1972.

5.  On 19 April 1972, a Report of Mental Status Evaluation found the FSM mentally fit for retention or discharge.

6.  On 24 April 1972, after consulting with counsel, the FSM submitted a voluntary request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his request for discharge he indicated he was making the request of his own free will without coercion from anyone and that he was aware of the implications attached to his request.  He acknowledged that he understood he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all benefits as a result of such a discharge.  In addition, the applicant was advised he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he were issued an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.  The FSM elected to submit a statement in his own behalf.  He stated he was having serious financial problems which affected his performance in the Army.  The situation existed because of his child's health problems which he could not handle.  He adds that his wife told him to get out of the Army and support the family properly or she would seek a divorce.  Since he could not earn enough money in the service, he found it necessary to be AWOL.  He was convinced this pattern of behavior would continue since his family was not in good shape financially and he believed that allowing him to get out of the Army would benefit the Army.

7.  On 12 May 1972, the appropriate authority approved the FSM's request for discharge for the good of the service, reduced him to the lowest enlisted grade, and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

8.  On 25 May 1972, the FSM was separated for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with a discharge under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  He completed a total of 3 years, 3 months, and 3 days of net active service.

9.  There is no indication the FSM applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions 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, states 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.

13.  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 III.  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 of the applicant's separation 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 (Standards of Medical Fitness) which was in effect at the time of his separation.  The Army has 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 any change does not call into question the application of then existing fitness standards.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that FSM's discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge because he suffered from PTSD was carefully considered and found to be insufficient in evidence.

2.  It is clear the FSM served honorably in Vietnam and that he probably experienced multiple situations involving exposure to combat.  However, there is no evidence in the FSM's military record and the applicant did provide any evidence to support her claim.  A Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 19 April 1972, found the FSM mentally responsible and that he met retention standards at the time of his discharge.

3.  The FSM's record shows he was charged with the commission of offenses punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with a punitive discharge.  Discharges under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He voluntarily, willingly, and in writing requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  His character of service is appropriate based on the facts of the case and his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.

4.  Based on his record of indiscipline, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct rendered his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, the FSM is not entitled to either an honorable or a general discharge.

5.  In view of the above, 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 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)                                         AR20100023816



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100023816



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1