IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    23 August 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110002439 


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 previous request that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to general under honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states that although the Board had substantial evidence to support his claim of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) being the direct cause of his self-destructive behavior following his service in Vietnam, it is apparent that someone overlooked the psychological evaluation conducted by the Veterans Administration (VA).  He contends he provided a copy of his VA Compensation and Pension Exam with his previous request, but somehow it was overshadowed.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his VA Compensation and Pension Examination.

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 AR20100016364 on 29 December 2010.

2.  The applicant's VA Compensation and Pension Examination was not discussed in the previous Record of Proceedings (ROP).  Therefore, it is considered new evidence that warrants consideration by the Board.

3.  The previous ROP noted:

	a.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 October 1964 and served in Vietnam from 30 September 1965 to 19 September 1966.

	b.  He accepted nonjudicial punishment on four occasions between 15 November 1965 and 22 September 1967 and his offenses included absenting himself from his unit (three specifications), entering the installation without a pass, unlawfully striking a private in the left eye with his fist, and unlawfully striking a specialist in the face with his fist.

	c.  He was convicted by a summary court-martial on 4 May 1967 for wrongfully appropriating a government vehicle and being absent without leave (AWOL) during the periods 27-31 January 1967, 5-6 February 1967, and 
13-28 February 1967.

	d.  He was convicted by a special court-martial on 22 June 1967 for failing to go to his appointed place of duty and breaking restriction.

	e.  He was given a neuropsychiatric evaluation on 29 September 1967 and was determined to be medically qualified for retention.

	f.  He was discharged on 1 November 1967 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unfitness and Unsuitability) with his service characterized as under other than honorable conditions.

	g.  His discharge was upgraded on 20 October 1977 to general under honorable conditions under the Department of Defense Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP), but the Army Discharge Review Board determined that his original characterization of service was warranted and did not affirm the discharge upgrade under the SDRP.

4.  The previous ROP concluded that his discharge was proper and that he failed to submit evidence which would warrant upgrading a properly-issued discharge.

5.  During his neuropsychiatric evaluation on 29 September 1967, the evaluating physician also concluded that there were no disqualifying mental defects sufficient to warrant disposition through medical channels and he was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and had the capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.

6.  He provides his VA Compensation and Pension Examination, dated 3 March 2009, which indicates he functioned normally in all areas of his life prior to going overseas and upon his return people described him as a changed person.  He was in severe conflict with others including the police and his ability to get along with others has been severely impaired since returning from Vietnam.  His PTSD symptoms began to emerge before his discharge from the Army.

7.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, provided that an individual was subject to separation for unfitness because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities; sexual perversion including but not limited to lewd and lascivious acts, indecent exposure, indecent acts with or assault on a child; drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit-forming drugs or marijuana; an established pattern of shirking; and an established pattern of dishonorable failure to pay just debts or to contribute adequate support to dependents.  When separation for unfitness was warranted, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his undesirable discharge should be upgraded because of his PTSD has been carefully considered.

2.  Prior to his discharge, he was given a neuropsychiatric evaluation which did not reveal any disqualifying mental defects sufficient to warrant disposition through medical channels.  It also found him mentally responsible and able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.

3.  Although he may be suffering from PTSD, his record of indiscipline commenced about 46 days after his arrival overseas and there is no evidence he was suffering from a disabling mental condition at the time.  Therefore, it appears his separation processing was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations, all requirements of law and regulation were met, and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.

4.  Based on the above, there is no basis to grant the 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20100016364, dated 29 December 2010.



      _______ _  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)                                         AR20110002439



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110002439



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1