BOARD DATE:	  2 September 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130021938 


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 request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge with restored benefits.

2.  The applicant states he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 

   a.  He states his PTSD was the direct cause of his diminished capacity and led to him going absent without leave (AWOL) during his military service.

   b.  He adds that the additional documents he now provides offer further evidence in support of his argument that was not previously considered.

   c.  He also requests a formal hearing and states that he will provide additional information at that time.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his self-authored statement (that was previously considered), Bureau of Prisons Health Services Inmate Full Term Release, and four information sheets concerning his medication.

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 AR20120010971, on 18 December 2012.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 January 1967 for a period of 3 years.  He served in Vietnam from 6 January 1968 to 2 January 1969.

3.  In May 1971, charges were preferred against him for being AWOL from 28 February 1970 to 23 April 1971.

4.  A Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination) shows the applicant underwent a medical examination on 4 May 1971.  It shows in the "Notes" section, "There is no reasonable grounds for belief that this individual is or ever has been mentally defective, deranged or abnormal.  A psychiatric examination is not deemed to be appropriate."  It also shows the examining medical doctor found the applicant qualified for separation and the medical examination was approved by the medical authority.

5.  The applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel).

6.  On 14 May 1971, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial and directed the issuance an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

7.  His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 20 May 1971.  He had completed 2 years, 9 months, and 12 days of net active service with 118 days lost under Title 10, U.S. Code, section 972, and 451 days lost subsequent to his normal expiration of his term of service.

8.  On 22 April 1987, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.

9.  A review of the applicant's military service records failed to reveal any evidence that he was diagnosed with PTSD or any other mental condition.

10.  The applicant provided copies of a Bureau of Prisons Health Services, Inmate Full Term Release, dated 12 July 2013, and four medical information sheets that show his health problems (diagnoses) and prescribed medications.  There is no mention of a diagnosis of PTSD.  (He previously provided several documents from the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Psychiatry Clinic, that show he was diagnosed with PTSD on 22 October 2002.)


11.  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 Veterans Administration (VA) benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life based on the characterization of such a discharge.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions would normally be directed for an individual who was discharged for the good of the service.

	b.  Chapter 3, 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.

	c.  Chapter 3, 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.

12.  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.  Paragraph 2-11 states applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR.  The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends his request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge should be reconsidered because his act of indiscipline that led to his discharge was a result of him suffering from PTSD, which in effect either resulted from or occurred during his service in Vietnam.


2.  The applicant's request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered.  However, by regulation, an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the Board.  Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the Board or by the Director of the ABCMR.  In this case, the evidence of record and independent evidence provided by the applicant is sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision at this time.  As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not warranted to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case.

3.  Records shows the applicant underwent a medical examination as part of his separation processing prior to being discharged from the Army.  There is no evidence the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD or any other mental condition.  In fact, the examining medical doctor found the applicant qualified for separation.

4.  The fact that the applicant previously provided documents from the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Psychiatry Clinic, more than 30 years after he was discharged from military service provides insufficient evidence for upgrading his discharge.  In fact, at that time of discharge, the examining medical doctor indicated, "There is no reasonable grounds for belief that this individual is or ever has been mentally defective, deranged or abnormal."

5.  The applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial was voluntary and administratively correct.  All requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Considering all the facts of the case, the reason for his separation and characterization of his service were appropriate and equitable.

6.  The applicant elected to request discharge in lieu of being court-martialed, he had 561 days of time lost and he failed to completed his 3-year enlistment obligation.  Thus, the applicant's service during the period under review clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and 
performance of duty for Army personnel and he is not entitled to either an honorable or general discharge.

7.  The ABCMR does not grant requests for upgrade of discharges solely for the purpose of making the applicant eligible for veterans' benefits.  Every case is individually decided based upon its merits when an applicant requests a change in his or her discharge.  Additionally, the granting of veterans' benefits is not within the purview of the ABCMR.  Any questions regarding eligibility for such benefits should be addressed to the VA or appropriate government agency.

8.  Therefore, in view of all of the foregoing, there is an insufficient basis for granting 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 AR20120010971, dated 18 December 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)                                         AR20130021938



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130021938



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1