BOARD DATE:	  18 October 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120007144 


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 an upgrade of his undesirable discharge.

2.  The applicant states he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at the time of his discharge.  He states it is his belief he never should have been inducted into the Army and that the doctors at the induction center never checked to see if he had mental problems.

3.  The applicant provides a letter from the Social Security Administration (SSA) and medical treatment record from Lakes Medical Center, West Bloomfield, MI, dated between 2002 and 2010 in support of his application.

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.  The applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 17 February 1966.  A Standard Form (SF) 88 (Record of Medical Examination), dated 23 July 1965, completed during the applicant's induction processing shows he received a normal psychiatric clinical evaluation and he was determined to be medically qualified for induction by the examining physician.

3.  He was trained and awarded military occupational specialty 94B (Cook) and served for 1 year, 6 months, and 5 days until 21 August 1967, at which time he was honorably discharged for the purpose of enlisting in the Regular Army (RA).  He attained the rank/grade of specialist four (SP4)/E-4 during this period of service.

4.  On 22 August 1967, the applicant enlisted in the RA for a period of 4 years.  The record shows the applicant was promoted to specialist five (SP5)/E-5 on
16 February 1968.  On 27 January 1969, he was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  He completed 1 year, 5 months, and 6 days of net active service during this period.

5.  On 28 January 1969, he reenlisted for a period of 6 years.  

6.  The applicant was reassigned for duty in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) on    3 May 1969.

7.  On 9 March 1970, the applicant departed absent without leave (AWOL) from his unit in the RVN.  He was then dropped from the rolls (DFR) of the organization on 19 April 1970.  He remained in a DFR status until he was apprehended and returned to military control at the Personnel Control Facility, Fort Riley, KS on 13 March 1972.

8.  On 20 March 1972, the applicant completed an SF 89 (Report of Medical History) for the purpose of separation processing wherein he indicated he was in "good" health, followed by his signature.  The SF 88 documenting the applicant's separation medical examination is not contained in his available record for review.

9.  On 8 May 1972, the applicant departed AWOL from the PCF, Fort Riley.  He remained away for 23 days until 30 May 1972, at which time he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations –Discharge - Misconduct (Fraudulent Entry, Conviction by Civil Court, AWOL, Desertion), with an undesirable discharge.
10.  The applicant's complete separation packet containing all the facts and circumstances surrounding his separation processing are not available for review.  However, his record contains a DD Form 214 that identifies the authority and reason for his discharge.  It confirms he was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations), by reason of Misconduct (prolonged unauthorized absence for more than 1 year) with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time shows he completed 1 year, 2 months, and 24 days of the net service this period with 759 days of time lost due to AWOL/DFR.

11.  The applicant provides medical treatment records, dated between February 2002 and July 2010, that show he was treated a psychiatric specialist at Lakes Medical Center, Bloomfield, MI during that period and was diagnosed with Axis I -schizophrenic disorder, depressed and Axis V – chronic mental illness.

12.  Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at that time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel due to misconduct (fraudulent entry, conviction by civil court, and absence without leave or desertion).  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.  The separation authority could issue an honorable or a general discharge if warranted based on the member's record of service.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) provides the current Army policy for enlisted separations.

	a.  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.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7b provides that 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request to upgrade his discharge and the supporting medical treatment records submitted have been carefully considered.  However, while it is 


unfortunate the applicant is now suffering from these diagnosed medical conditions, there is no evidence of record or independent evidence indicating he suffered from a disabling physical or mental condition at the time of his discharge.

2.  The record is void of a complete separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's separation processing.  However, the applicant's record contains a DD Form 214 for the period ending
30 May 1972 that confirms he was separated by reason of misconduct due to prolonged absence without leave or desertion.  Absent evidence to the contrary, this document carries with it a presumption of regularity in the discharge process.

3.  The record also contains an SF 89 completed by the applicant during his separation processing, dated 20 March 1972.  In this document, the applicant personally indicated he was in good health.  Although the SF 88 documenting his separation medical examination is not in the available record, procedurally the examining physician would have been required to conduct a complete and thorough examination of the applicant and confirm he was medically qualified for separation/retention prior to the applicant's final separation.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to presume that the applicant was medially cleared for separation and suffered from no disabling conditions at the time of his discharge.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary 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 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)                                         AR20120007144



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120007144



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1