IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  10 May 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110020669 


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 request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD) to a general discharge.

2.  He states he served under honorable conditions until he returned from Vietnam.  This service caused him to suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which is attested to in a letter from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).  

3.  He provides his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) and a letter from the VA.  

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 AR20110002427 on 20 September 2011.

2.  The applicant provided a letter from the VA, which is considered new evidence and it will be considered by the Board.  

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 October 1965.  He completed training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 94B (Cook).  He served in Germany from 12 April through 15 September 1966 and in Vietnam from 29 October 1966 through 26 October 1967.  
4.  On 17 June 1968, he was convicted by a special court-martial for one specification of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 3 to 23 May 1968.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 4 months and a forfeiture of $64.00 pay for 4 months.  

5.  On 30 November 1968 and 21 March 1969, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being AWOL from 17 to 30 November 1968 and from 9 December 1968 to 11 January 1969.

6.  On 8 August 1969, he was convicted by a special court-martial of two specifications of being AWOL from 6 to 19 May 1969 and from 8 June to 18 July 1969.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and a forfeiture of $55.00 pay for 6 months.  

7.  On 3 September 1969, the company commander notified the applicant of the proposed action to effect his separation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability) for unfitness.   The commander stated the applicant’s record reflected 6 periods of AWOL, two special courts-martial, and two Article 15s.  He felt that due to the applicant’s negative attitude he should be eliminated.  

8.  On 19 September 1969, after consulting with counsel, he acknowledged the proposed separation action.  He waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  He acknowledged that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge was issued to him.  He also acknowledged he understood that as a result of a UD being issued to him he may be ineligible for any or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.

9.  On 19 September 1969, the applicant's battalion commander recommended approval of the applicant's separation action with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

10.  On 29 September 1969, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unfitness and directed the issuance of an UD Certificate.

11.  He was discharged on 7 October 1969 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness, with a UD.  He was credited with completion of 3 years, 1 month, and 14 days of active service and 302 days of lost time.




12.  The applicant provided a letter from the VA, dated 16 October 2008, which states:

	a.  The applicant obtained employment and was saving money towards getting out of the homeless shelter he had lived in for 14 months.  Living in the homeless shelter triggered his PTSD symptoms and he continued to be hyper vigilant with difficulty sleeping.  The atmosphere of a homeless shelter continued to make him feel unsafe and anxious.

	b.  Based on counseling sessions, it appeared the applicant:

		(1)  Was a good Soldier in Germany prior to service in Vietnam and he did what was expected of him in Vietnam.  

		(2)  Suffered several traumatic incidents that left him with hyper vigilance, avoidance and numbing, nightmares, and intrusive thoughts, and he may have suffered Traumatic Brain Injury.

		(3)  Hit his head and lost consciousness after running away from mortar fire and he hit a tree in the dark and was dazed after returning from setting up an ambush.

	c.  The applicant started drinking upon return home from Vietnam to try to forget about his experiences.  He reported difficulty sleeping and he drank heavily to help him pass out and sleep.  He had a fear of sleep, was easily irritated, had poor concentration, trouble reading, hyper vigilance, and survivor guilt.  

	d.  The applicant heard a rumor he would be shipped back to Vietnam which started the behaviors that kept him in trouble with the military.  He had a sense of foreshortened future and reported he did not think his behavior mattered.  

	e.  The applicant has struggled with PTSD symptoms and they continue to challenge his ability to have a job and home.  

	f.  The applicant’s prognosis remained poor despite his motivation towards psychotherapy.  His multiaxial diagnoses were PTSD, chronic, severe, with delayed onset depression-chronic, alcoholism, ulcers, migraine headaches, diabetes, and exposure to war (12 months).

13.  There is no evidence he submitted a request to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15 year statute of limitations.

14.  Army Regulation 635-212 set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability.  Action to separate an individual was to be taken when, in the judgment of the commander, rehabilitation was impractical or was unlikely to produce a satisfactory Soldier.  An UD was normally considered appropriate for individuals separated by reason of unfitness.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 3-7b stated a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions could be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allowed such characterization.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's letter, dated 16 October 2008, from the VA contending that he experienced symptoms of PTSD subsequent to his service on active duty has been acknowledged.  

2.  His discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unfitness was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  

3.  His service record shows he received two Article 15s and he was convicted by a special court-martial on two occasions.  

4.  It appears the separation authority determined that the applicant's overall service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty to warrant recommendation of general discharge and characterized his service as undesirable.

5.  The applicant's service record is void of evidence which indicates this condition existed while he was serving on active duty or that he was suffering from a mental or medical condition that contributed to the misconduct that led to his discharge action.  

6.  The evidence of record does not indicate the actions taken in his case were in error or unjust.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting his request for an upgrade of his UD to general 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 AR20110002427, dated 20 September 2011.



      _______ _   _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)                                         AR20110020669



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110020669



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1