BOARD DATE:	  5 April 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100024055 


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 that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  He was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) resulting from his service in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN).  He was not diagnosed or given medical treatment.

	b.  Since he was discharged he has served as a Boy Scout den leader, started an employee assistance program at work to help people with alcohol and drug problems, and he has spoken for the "Youth in Danger" program.    

3.  The applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty); a 3-page statement in support of his Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) claim; Standard Form (SF) 89 (Report of Medical History), dated 12 October 1967; diploma for the Airborne Course, dated 13 April 1968; certificate for award of the Army Commendation Medal, dated 9 July 1969; page 3 of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record); letter from a VA doctor, dated 14 December 2009; and two statements from former Soldiers who served with the applicant.

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 1 May 1967, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 71H (Personnel Specialist).  

3.  On 12 April 1968, the applicant completed basic airborne training and departed Fort Benning, Georgia for duty in the RVN.

4.  On 19 August 1968, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) during the period 17 May to 15 July 1968.

5.  The applicant served in the RVN with Company C, 15th Medical Battalion during the period from 25 August 1968 to 13 August 1969.  He was subsequently assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

6.  The applicant was AWOL from 6 October 1969 to 6 April 1970 (183 days), and he was placed in confinement on 7 April 1970.

7.  On 30 April 1970, the applicant's commander notified him of the proposed action to separate him due to unfitness.  The notice informed him of his right to counsel and to make a statement in his own behalf.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification.

8.  On 8 May 1970, the applicant’s commander recommended that he be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness.  The commander stated that the applicant had no motivation for continued service and he would not respond to further counseling or rehabilitation.

9.  On 11 May 1970, the appropriate authority waived further counseling and rehabilitation and approved the recommendation for discharge.  He directed that the applicant be issued a DD Form 258A (Undesirable Discharge Certificate).


10.  On 21 May 1970, the applicant was accordingly issued an undesirable discharge.  He had completed 1 year, 9 months and 8 days of creditable active service and he had 286 days of lost time due to being AWOL and in confinement.

11.  On 10 October 1972, the Army Discharge Review Board determined that the applicant's discharge was proper and equitable.

12.  On or about 4 April 1977, the Department of Defense (DOD) Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) examined the applicant's discharge.  The DOD SDRP upgraded his discharge to general, under honorable conditions and issued him new separation documents.

13.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability.  The regulation provided that members were subject to separation for unfitness because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  When separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  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.

15.  The applicant's VA claim statement provides the following comments:

	a.  He quit school at age 17 to help his mother.  He worked one job after another trying to keep a roof over their heads.  When his father returned he was told to leave.  

	b.  He was without an education, job, or a place to live, and he joined the Army.  He loved the Army and he completed basic training to include basic airborne training.

	c.  He volunteered for duty in the RVN but ran into trouble while at home on leave.  When he returned to the Army he was reduced to private, pay grade E-1 and fined.  He went to the RVN.

	d.  While in the RVN, his best friend was killed.  This was the first time he lost someone whom he cared about.  He returned to the U.S. in August 1969, but it was not the same.

	e.  His fiancée found him months later living in a park.  He was unshaven, unwashed, wearing his dress green Army uniform.  She took him to the hospital at Fort Dix, New Jersey.

	f.  He was put into the stockade and subsequently discharged under other than honorable conditions.

	g.  In 1970, he got married but the war would not let him go.  He had to drink himself to sleep at night to stop the images of the RVN and his friend in a body bag.

	h.  In 1977, a friend reached out to him.  Things got better.  He got a job interview and his discharge was upgraded to general.

	i.  Now he takes medicines and receives therapy.  The war still haunts him and always will.  The only thing he ever felt good about was his service in the Army.  He asks that his service not be ruled anything but honorable.

16.  The two statements provided by the applicant, as rendered by former Soldiers, essentially state that the applicant performed his duties in a professional and exemplary manner.

17.  The letter, provided by the applicant, from a VA doctor states the applicant applied for service connection disability for PTSD.  The letter restates much of what the applicant stated in his VA claim statement; but, also acknowledges that the applicant has been given VA benefits even though his AWOL exceeded 
180 days.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his general discharge should be upgraded because he suffered from PTSD at the time.

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
4.  In 1978, the DOD SDRP reviewed the applicant's discharge and determined the circumstances warranted an upgrade to general, under honorable conditions. It appears that this determination was made based on the same evidence and argument he presented in this case. 

5.  The applicant’s claim of good post-service conduct is noted.  However, it does not sufficiently mitigate his acts of indiscipline during his military service or justify further upgrade of the 1978 DOD SDRP determination.

6.  In view of the above, the applicant’s request should be denied.

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)                                         AR20100024055



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100024055



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1