BOARD DATE:	  4 June 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130015917 


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, in effect, an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states his general discharge under honorable conditions is without veterans' benefits.  The applicant further states he had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) prior to departing Vietnam and his physicians agree that his PTSD contributed to him being absent without leave (AWOL) for a prolonged period of time.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement, copies of his post-service medical records, Combat Infantryman Badge and Air Medal orders, Vietnam Combat Certificate, character references, and assorted correspondence.

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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 October 1967 at the age of 17 years, 11 months, and 24 days.  He completed training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman), and he was transferred to Vietnam on or about 22 June 1968.

3.  His records contain the following disciplinary history:

	a.  Headquarters, U.S. Army Personnel Center, Summary Court-Martial Order Number 56, dated 20 June 1968, shows he pled guilty and he was found guilty of absenting himself from his organization from 4 May to 4 June 1968.

	b.  Headquarters, 3d Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile), Special Court-Martial Order Number 21, dated 10 March 1969, shows he pled not guilty and he was found guilty of behaving with disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer on or about 19 January 1969.

	c.  Headquarters, Experimentation Battalion (Infantry), Fort Ord, CA, Summary Court-Martial Order Number 53, dated 7 November 1969, shows he pled guilty and he was found guilty of absenting himself from his unit from 10 to 21 October 1969.

	d.  Headquarters, U.S. Army Combat Developments Command, Experimentation Command, Fort Ord, CA, Special Court-Martial Order Number 45, dated 14 April 1970, shows he pled guilty and he was found guilty of absenting himself from his unit from 6 December 1969 to 17 February 1970.

4.  The complete facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not available for review.  However, his records contain a DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) which shows he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 5 April 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He completed 2 years, 6 months, and 4 days of total active service with 720 days of lost time.

5.  On 23 May 1977, the applicant applied for consideration for an upgrade of his discharge under the Department of Defense Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP).

6.  A Department of the Army Office of the Adjutant General and the Adjutant General Center letter, dated 26 July 1977, notified the applicant that his discharge was upgraded to general under honorable conditions effective 27 June 1977 and that new separation documents were enclosed.

7.  On 25 June 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed the SDRP decision in accordance with Public Law 95-126 and determined not to affirm the findings under the SDRP.

8.  On 16 July 1979, the applicant was issued a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) which shows item 27 (Remarks) of the applicant's DD Form 214 for the period ending 5 April 1972 was amended to show the entry "DISCH [Discharge] REVIEWED UP [under the provisions of] PL [Public Law] 95-126 AND A DETERMINATION MADE THAT CHARACTERIZATION OF SERVICE WAS WARRANTED UP [under the provisions of] DOD [Department of Defense] SDRP 4 APR 77 [4 April 1977].

9.  On 20 July 1979, the applicant was notified by the Department of the Army Office of the Adjutant General and the Adjutant General Center that the ADRB could not affirm his SDRP upgraded discharge under the review standards required by Public Law 95-126.  This letter further informed the applicant that this action would not change his current discharge, but may impact his ability to obtain Veterans Administration (VA) benefits.

10.  His records are void of any evidence and he has not provided sufficient evidence that shows he was ever diagnosed with or treated for PTSD or any other mental health disorder while serving in the Army.

11.  The applicant provided a card and two letters of support/character reference with his request.  These individuals attest to his good character and post-service conduct.

12.  The applicant provided several pages of medical progress notes from psychiatrists within the VA medical system.  These progress notes provide a synopsis of the applicant's therapy and treatment and further show the applicant was being treated at various times for PTSD, polysubstance dependence, personality disorder, and depression, among other ailments.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Chapter 10 of the version in effect at the time provided that a member who committed 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 at any time after court-martial charges were preferred.  Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service.  Consulting counsel would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses charged, the type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of VA benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge.  An Undesirable Discharge Certificate would normally be furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service.

	b.  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.

14.  Public Law 95-126 provided for a "Relook Program."  All cases upgraded from under other than honorable conditions under the SDRP or the extension to Presidential Proclamation 4313 had to be relooked and affirmed or not affirmed under uniform standards.  Two of the principal features of Public Law 95-126 were:

	a.  the addition of 180 days of continuous unauthorized absence for other reasons (e.g., conscientious objector, deserters) for discharges which act as a specific bar to eligibility for VA benefits.  Such absence must have been the basis for discharge under other than honorable conditions and is computed without regard to expiration of term of service; and

	b.  prospective disqualification for receipt of VA benefits for those originally qualifying as a result of an upgrade by authority of the Presidential memorandum of 19 January 1977 or the SDRP, unless an eligibility determination was made under the published uniform standards and procedures.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention, in effect, that his general discharge under honorable conditions should be upgraded to a discharge with entitlement to veterans' benefits due to his suffering from PTSD was carefully considered.

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time and the type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate.

3.  Although the applicant's character of service was upgraded under the provisions of the SDRP, the ADRB determined that his overall record of service did not warrant affirming the SDRP findings.  Therefore, the applicant's DD Form 214 is correct as currently constituted.

4.  The applicant's record of service shows he was routinely AWOL during his service for a total of 720 days.  Further, his first period of extended AWOL occurred before he ever arrived in Vietnam.  The quality of his service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel for an honorable discharge.

5.  Although the applicant provides records which show he received treatment for PTSD subsequent to his military service, his service records are void of any evidence and he has not provided sufficient evidence that shows he was ever diagnosed with or treated for PTSD or any other mental health condition while serving in the Army.  Notwithstanding the statements provided by the applicant and his post-service conduct, the ABCMR does not grant requests for discharge upgrades solely for the purpose of making applicants eligible for veterans' benefits.

6.  In light of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for upgrading the applicant's discharge and he is not entitled to 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 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)                                         AR20130015917



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130015917



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1