IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  11 September 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120009993 


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 for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable or a general discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he suffered injuries to his lower extremities while parachuting and as soon as he was declared fit for duty he was forced into a position which caused a traumatic physical injury.  He was suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and he went absent without leave (AWOL) to avoid further physical injury.  He states the Board did not previously consider his military medical records in determining the outcome of his case.  In addition, he states without an upgrade of his discharge he will be deprived of veteran's benefits for his service-related injuries.   

3.  The applicant provides:

* self-authored statement
* Standard Form (SF) 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care)
* Injury Report
* DA Form 8-275-3 (Clinical Record Cover Sheet)
* Discharge Summary
* Initial Psychological Consultation/Therapy Report

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 AR20100017001, on 23 December 2010.

2.  The applicant provided new evidence and a new argument that warrant consideration by the Board.

3.  The applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 15 May 1962.  His record shows he completed training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 723.17 (Communications Center Specialist).  The highest rank/grade he attained while serving on active duty was private first class/E-3.  However, at the time of his discharge he held the rank/grade of private/E-1.

4.  His record contains a DA Form 26 (Record of Court-Martial Conviction) which shows he was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL for the period 20 December 1963 through 26 February 1964.

5.  On 23 March 1964, the applicant again went AWOL and was subsequently dropped from the rolls as a deserter on 22 April 1964.

6.  On 16 October 1964, the applicant was convicted of transporting in interstate commerce a stolen vehicle and he was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.  

7.  His record contains an undated FGGM Form 385 (Individual Statement Concerning Appeal) which shows the applicant was notified of his pending separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Misconduct) for conviction by a civil court.  This form states the applicant did not intend to appeal his conviction, that he was denied parole on 24 March 1965, and that his minimum expiration date was 
16 December 1965.

8.  On 21 April 1965, a recommendation for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 was initiated based on the applicant’s civil conviction on 16 October 1964.

9.  On 28 April 1965, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of an undesirable discharge.  

10.  Accordingly, on 25 June 1965, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 for his conviction by a civil court with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) he was issued shows he completed a total of 1 year, 6 months, and 25 days of creditable active military service and he had accrued 561 days of lost time.
11.  The applicant provides medical documentation which shows he suffered a:

* right hip contusion during airborne training on 18 February 1963
* left knee contusion during a parachute jump on 6 June 1963
* right calf injury during a parachute jump, treated 20 September 1963
* hypertensive intercerebral bleed on 18 February 1996

12.  On 17 June 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

13.  Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for misconduct.  The regulation provided for the separation of personnel for conviction by a civil court.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), 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.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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 contention that his discharge should be upgraded was carefully reconsidered and determined to be without merit.

2.  Although the applicant alleges to have suffered from PTSD during his military service, there is no evidence in his military records and the applicant has not provided any evidence supporting this contention.  Additionally, there is no evidence which shows the applicant's misconduct was a direct result of the alleged disorder.  Therefore, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge.

3.  Based on his record of indiscipline, the applicant's service did not meet the standard of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  His misconduct rendered his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an honorable or a general discharge.

4.  In addition, the ABCMR does not grant requests for upgrade of discharges solely for the purpose of making the applicant eligible for veterans or medical benefits.  Every case is individually decided based upon its merits when an applicant requests a change in his or her discharge.  The granting of veteran's benefits is not within the purview of the ABCMR.  Therefore, any questions regarding eligibility for health care and other benefits should be addressed to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

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 AR20100017001, dated 23 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)                                         AR20120009993



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120009993



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1