IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  6 June 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130000375 


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 his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general or an honorable discharge and that the separation program designator (SPD) code reflect "medical (PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder))."

2.  The applicant states the reason for and characterization of his discharge is inequitable and improper in light of circumstances which significantly underlie the behavior that led to his derogatory and immediate discharge.  He states he suffered from PTSD as a direct result of a combat stressor that occurred in military service prior to the behavior which ultimately led to his discharge.  He states his PTSD occurred prior to 1984 while he was serving in Germany.  He did not know what PTSD was until 2008, when he realized there was a possibility he suffered from it.

3.  The applicant provides:

* unofficial transcript from Cochise College, Douglas, AZ, dated 9 August 2012
* three certificates of completion from Cochise College, dated 3 December 2010 

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.  On 30 April 1979, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 19E (Armor Crewman).

3.  He was assigned to the 12th Engineer Battalion in Germany from 26 August 1979 to 21 August 1981.  He accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on:

* 18 July 1980 for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty
* 1 August 1981 for behaving with disrespect toward a commissioned officer

4.  On 5 October 1981, he was assigned to the 4th Engineer Battalion at Fort Carson, CO.  He accepted NJP on:

* 6 November 1981 for operating a passenger vehicle while drunk
* 22 December 1981 for being drunk and disorderly and behaving with disrespect toward a commissioned officer

5.  DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action) in his Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) show he was absent without leave from 7 January to 5 February 1982.

6.  DA Forms 4187 show he went AWOL on 13 February 1982 and was dropped from the rolls on 15 March 1982.  He was apprehended by civilian authorities in Merced, CA on 21 March 1984 and confined in the Merced County jail.  He was returned to military jurisdiction on 31 May 1984.

7.  The charge sheet referring him for court-martial is not available for review.

8.  On 8 June 1984, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service.  He acknowledged he understood the offenses he was charged with and he was:

* making the request of his own free will
* guilty of the offense with which he was charged
* advised he could submit any statements in his own behalf
* afforded the opportunity to speak with counsel prior to making this request
* advised he may be furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate

9.  In addition, the applicant was advised he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received a discharge under other than honorable conditions and he:

* would be deprived of many or all Army benefits
* may be ineligible for many or all Veterans Administration benefits

10.  He elected not to make any statements in his own behalf.

11.  On 9 August 1984, he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations, Enlisted Personnel), for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He was assigned SPD KFS (for the good of the service - in lieu of court-martial).  He completed 2 years, 10 months, and 24 days of net active service that was characterized as under other than honorable conditions.  He had 866 days of time lost.

12.  His service medical records were not available for review.

13.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to upgrade his discharge.  On 25 November 1991, the ADRB reviewed and denied the applicant's request.  The ADRB determined that the applicant's discharge was proper and equitable and his service was properly characterized as under other than honorable conditions.

14.  The unofficial transcript from Cochise College he provided shows he was attending vocational programs for:

* Customer Service
* Facility Maintenance

15.  He submitted three certificates of completion from Cochise College, dated 
3 December 2010 for:

* Basic Facility Maintenance Technician
* Basic Custodial Services
* Advanced Custodial Services

16.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Chapter 10 stated a member who was charged with an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request could be submitted at any time after charges had been preferred and must have included the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally issued to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service.

	b.  An honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitled the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would have been clearly inappropriate.

	c.  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.

17.  Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR.  The regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In order for the applicant to request a discharge under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200, charges would have been preferred against him for an offense for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge.  Although his charge sheet was not available, based on the length of his last period of AWOL it is reasonable to conclude he was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.  

2.  He contends he suffered from PTSD as a direct result of a combat stressor.  However, he did not provide any substantive evidence to support his contention.  His medical records are not available for review.  There is no evidence that he was diagnosed with PTSD or any other condition while on active duty and there is no evidence of a current diagnosis of PTSD.  He served 24 months in Germany and was then assigned to Fort Carson, CO.  There is no evidence of combat service.  Therefore, his contention of his PTSD as direct result of a combat stressor is not supported by the available evidence.

3.  There is no evidence the applicant was found unfit for duty for any medical condition.  At the time he requested a discharge, he did not submit any statements on his own behalf that may have addressed medical conditions, including PTSD, that may have had a bearing on his misconduct.  Therefore, he is not eligible for a medical discharge.

4.  His voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.

5.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, regularity in the discharge process is presumed.  The available records contain no evidence of procedural or other errors that would have jeopardized his rights.

6.  He accepted NJP on four occasions.  He had 866 days of time lost.  The fact that he was apprehended by civilian authorities after being AWOL for 769 days raises doubt as to his intent to return to military jurisdiction of his own volition.  Therefore, his service is considered unsatisfactory.

7.  His post-service accomplishments are noted.  However, post-service conduct is not normally sufficient for upgrading a properly issued discharge.

8.  In view of the above, there is an insufficient basis to upgrade his discharge to an honorable discharge or a 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 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)                                         AR20130000375



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130000375



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1