BOARD DATE:	  13 June 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120021870 


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 for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to general, under honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states he was given a court-martial within one year of his return from Vietnam.  He contends he was suffering from severe post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) which was not diagnosed at the time.

3.  The applicant provides Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Progress Notes.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests the applicant's discharge be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions.  

2.  Counsel states the applicant was suffering from undiagnosed PTSD at the time of the charges.  

3.  Counsel provides no additional evidence.

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 AR20110024868, on 7 June 2012.
2.  The applicant's VA Progress Notes were not discussed in the previous Record of Proceedings (ROP).  Therefore, these documents are considered new evidence that warrants consideration by the Board.

3.  The previous ROP noted:

	a.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 December 1961 and he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 120.00 (Pioneer) upon completion of initial entry training.  

	b.  He was subsequently awarded MOS 941.10 (Cook).

	c.  During the period from on or about 8 June 1962 to on or about 18 May 1963, he served with the 8th Transportation Company in Vietnam.  Upon his return to the United States, he was hospitalized for 28 days from 28 June until 25 July 1963.

	d.  He reenlisted for three years on 20 November 1963.

	e.  He accepted nonjudicial punishment on 9 December 1963, for disobeying a lawful order to remain available for classes and on 4 June 1964, for failing to go to morning reveille formation on three separate occasions and for leaving the battery area without authority.

	f.  He was convicted by a summary court-martial on 15 June 1964 of being drunk and disorderly.

	g.  He was convicted by a special court-martial on 20 October 1964 of offering violence against his superior officer, damaging military property, and being drunk and disorderly.

	h.  He provided a statement on 23 November 1964 wherein he acknowledged he was counseled and advised by his commander about a recommendation to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Undesirable Habits and Traits of Character) and that he was informed he may be issued an undesirable discharge.  He declined the opportunity to consult with counsel and did not desire to make a statement in his own behalf.

	i.  His discharge packet is missing from his military records.

	j.  His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he was discharged on 23 December 1964 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness.  His service was characterized as under conditions other than honorable.  He completed a total of 2 years and 11 months of creditable active duty service and accrued 26 days of lost time.

	k.  There is no evidence of record showing he suffered from PTSD or any other mental condition, or that such medical condition was the proximate cause of his repeated misconduct.

	l.  There is no evidence indicating he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

4.  During the review of his request for reconsideration, it was noted his military file includes a form titled "Relief of Student," dated 14 April 1964, which indicates he was eliminated from the Aircraft Maintenance (Entry) Course due to disciplinary reasons.  

5.  His military file also includes a Clinical Record-Consultation Sheet that shows he was evaluated on 7 October 1964.  The evaluating physician indicated the applicant was evaluated by a psychiatrist in 1962, while in Vietnam, and he was described as being immature and having paranoid feelings towards others.  The evaluating physician also indicated the following 

	a.  The applicant was considered to be characterized best by the diagnosis of Emotionally Unstable Personality manifested by immaturity of judgment, impulsive behavior, difficulties in interpersonal relationships, lack of sense of responsibility, or motivation for service.  

	b.  There were numerous instances in which it was apparent he stated whatever he thought would serve his purpose best at the moment without regard for accuracy. 

	c.  One of his biggest problems was his behavior while under the influence of alcohol and his inclination to drink to excess.

	d.  On repeated episodes, he declared he was unable to recall what he did while under the influence of alcohol but it appears to be more likely a matter of convenience because his behavior was purposeful and descriptions while under the influence of alcohol indicated he was well aware of what he was doing.

	e.  He was considered able to distinguish right from wrong, although in intense emotional states or states of diminished judgment or diminished consciousness such as might result from drinking, he might to some degree be limited in his ability to adhere to the right.

	f.  He was considered able to understand the nature of charges and to participate and cooperate in his own defense.  

6.  He provides VA Progress Notes, printed on 28 November 2012, that show he was diagnosed as suffering from PTSD.

7.  Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, provided the authority for discharging enlisted personnel for unfitness.  Separation action was to be taken when the commander determined that the best interest of the service would be served by eliminating the individual concerned and reasonable attempts to rehabilitate or develop the individual to be a satisfactory Soldier were unlikely to succeed; or rehabilitation was impracticable, such as in cases of confirmed drug addiction or when the medical and/or personal history indicated that the individual was not amenable to rehabilitation measures; or disposition under other regulations was inappropriate.  Unfitness included frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military or civil authorities.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), 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 because he was suffering from PTSD has been carefully considered.  

2.  Although he may now be suffering from PTSD, there is no evidence he was suffering from a disabling mental condition at the time of the repeated misconduct that led to his discharge.  He was evaluated by competent medical authority prior to his discharge and he was considered able to distinguish right from wrong.  Therefore, it appears his separation processing was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations and that all requirements of law and regulation were met.  There is no evidence that suggests there was any error or injustice related to his separation processing.

3.  His record of indiscipline includes nonjudicial punishment on two occasions, two court-martial convictions, elimination from formal training due to disciplinary reasons, and 26 days of lost time.  Based on this record of indiscipline, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct also renders his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, he is not entitled to a general discharge.

4.  Based on the foregoing, 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 that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20110024868, dated 7 June 2012.




      _______ _ 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)                                         AR20120021870



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120021870



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1