IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  18 September 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140001091 


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 be upgraded to an honorable discharge
* award of the Combat Medical Badge
* correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the period ending 4 December 1968 to show his social security number as X99-XX-XXXX vice X09-XX-XXXX
* correction of his DD Form 214 to show the Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device and the Combat Medical Badge

2.  The applicant states up until around 13 September 1968 he had excellent service and ratings.  In 1968, he started shutting down due to what he now knows as extreme post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) for which he is now being treated.  On 24 September 1967, he was issued orders for the Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device which is not on his DD Form 214.  He was a combat medic in Vietnam from 3 March 1967 to 2 December 1967 and he should have received the Combat Medical Badge.  

3.  The applicant provides two DD Forms 214, orders, and one page of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record).

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.  In conjunction with his enlistment in the Regular Army (RA), the applicant completed a DD Form 398 (Statement of Personal History) on 22 November 1965 wherein he listed his SSN as X99-XX-XXXX.

3.  He enlisted in the RA on 24 November 1965 and he held military occupational specialty (MOS) 91B (Medical Specialist).  His DA Form 20, created upon his entry on active duty, listed his SSN as X99-XX-XXXX.  He was promoted to the rank/grade of specialist five (SP5) on 23 July 1967.

4.  He served in Vietnam while assigned as follows:

* from 12 December 1966 to 2 March 1967, with the 9th Medical Battalion, 9th Infantry Division (ID)
* from 3 March 1967 to 2 December 1967, with the 2nd Battalion, 47th Infantry, 9th ID

5.  The applicant provides and his record contains General Orders (GO) Number 4969, dated 24 September 1967, issued by Headquarters (HQ), 9th ID, awarding him the Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device for heroism in connection with military operations against a hostile force in Vietnam on 22 August 1967 while serving as company medic for Company C, 2nd Battalion, 47th Infantry. While accompanying the 2nd Platoon to the company base camp, the lead vehicle ran over and detonated a land mine.  He immediately dismounted his vehicle and dashed to the stricken vehicle.  Despite the incidence of an intense fire aboard the stricken vehicle, he entered the burning vehicle and carried the wounded men to safety.

6.  He was discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment on 11 July 1968.  He completed 2 years, 7 months, and 18 days of creditable active service during this period of service.  Item 3 (SSN) of the DD Form 214 he was issued for this period of service shows his SSN as X99-XX-XXXX.

7.  He reenlisted in the RA on 12 July 1968.  On 13 September 1968, he was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 33rd Armor, Germany.

8.  On 1 October 1968, he underwent a psychiatric evaluation.  The examining physician stated the applicant had been assigned to Germany for 2 weeks and his command had referred him for an examination under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unfitness and Unsuitability).  The examining physician diagnosed him with an immature personality disorder and, in part, stated:

	a.  [The applicant] threatened to bring injury to others and had been hospitalized on two different occasions since his arrival in Germany.  He claims he had to be home with his pregnant wife as he does not want her to "suffer" as his mother had to.  He claims he was hospitalized while in basic combat training for psychiatric reasons.  He stated he received the Bronze Star Medal and Purple Heart while serving as a combat medic in Vietnam.  Civilian arrests were denied.

	b.  He seems to have a chip on his shoulder.  He is resentful because the Army does not make it easier for him to stay close to his pregnant wife.  There is no evidence of psychosis or brain damage.  Somehow, he feels being married means being responsible only to his wife and not to other obligations.  Chances for rehabilitation are poor.  He has an immature personality disorder manifested by shirking of responsibility (emphasis added).  He threatens further trouble, even violence, and is immature enough to try to "prove" to his command that he really means it.

	c.  The examining physician recommended the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.

9.  On 15 October 1968, he was notified by his immediate commander that discharge action was being initiated against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability.  The commander stated the applicant reenlisted in the RA on 12 July 1968 and was 20 years old.  His immediate supervisor had stated his performance and attitude was unsatisfactory.  He (the commander) had counseled him about his problems and he had stated if he was not discharged he would cause more trouble or even violence.  His performance was characterized by neglect of his duties and behavior rendering him of no future value to military service.  There were no grounds for other disposition of him and he had no convictions by company level punishment or by court-martial. 

10.  On 16 November 1968, he acknowledged notification of the discharge action being initiated against him, that he was advised of the possible effects of a general discharge under honorable conditions, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.  He further acknowledged he understood if he were issued an undesirable discharge under conditions other than honorable, he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and he may be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.  He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived his right to legal counsel, and he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

11.  On 16 November 1968, the separation authority approved his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  On 4 December 1968, he was discharged accordingly.

12.  The DD Form 214 he was issued for this period of service shows he was discharged in the rank of SP5 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unsuitability (separation program number (SPN) 246) with an under honorable conditions characterization of service.  Item 3 shows his SSN as X09-XX-XXXX.  He completed 4 months and 22 days of creditable active service during this period of service.

13.  Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of his last DD Form 214 shows the:

* National Defense Service Medal
* Vietnam Service Medal 
* Vietnam Campaign Medal
* One Overseas Service Bar

14.  There is no indication in the available record that shows the applicant was ever hospitalized or treated for any mental disorder while serving on active duty.  There are no medical records for review with this case.  His records do not contain orders awarding him the Combat Medical Badge.

15.  There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

16.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, contained the policy and outlined the procedures for separating individuals for unsuitability.  It provided that individuals would be discharged by reason of unsuitability when their records were characterized by one or more of the following:  (a) inaptitude due to a lack of general adaptability, (b) character and behavior disorders determined by medical authority, (c) apathy and defective attitudes, and/or (d) alcoholism.  This regulation prescribed that an individual discharged for unsuitability would be furnished an honorable or a general discharge.

17.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), which superseded Army Regulation 635-212, was revised on 1 December 1976, following settlement of a civil suit.  Thereafter, the type of discharge and the character of service was to be determined solely by the individual's military record during the current enlistment.  Further, any separation for unsuitability, based on personality disorder must include a diagnosis of a personality disorder made by a physician trained in psychiatry.  In connection with these changes, a Department of the Army Memorandum dated 14 January 1977, and better known as the Brotzman Memorandum, was promulgated.  It required retroactive application of revised policies, attitudes and changes in reviewing applications for upgrade of discharges based on personality disorders.

18.  A second memorandum, dated 8 February 1978, and better known as the Nelson Memorandum, expanded the review policy and specified that the presence of a personality disorder diagnosis would justify upgrade of a discharge to fully honorable except in cases where there are "clear and demonstrable reasons" why a fully honorable discharge should not be given.  Conviction by general court-martial or by more than one special court-martial was determined to be "clear and demonstrable reasons" which would justify a less than fully honorable discharge.

19.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the Combat Medical Badge is awarded to medical department personnel (colonel and below) who are assigned or attached to a medical unit of company or smaller size that is organic to an infantry unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size which is engaged in active ground combat.  Battle participation credit is not sufficient; the infantry unit must have been in contact with the enemy and the Soldier must have been personally present and under fire during such ground combat.

20.  Army Regulation 600-8-22, paragraph 2-13, contains the regulatory guidance on the Vietnam Service Medal.  It states that a bronze service star is authorized with this award for each Vietnam campaign a member is credited with participating in.  Appendix B shows that during his service in Vietnam, he participated in two campaigns.

21.  Army Regulation 670-1 (Uniforms and Insignia) governs the requirements for the Overseas Service Bar.  For Vietnam service, one Overseas Service Bar was authorized for each period of 6 months active Federal service as a member of a U.S. Service in Vietnam from 1 July 1958 to 28 March 1973.  Both the month of arrival and the month of departure from Vietnam were counted as whole months for credit toward the Overseas Service Bar.

22.  Department of the Army (DA) Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) lists the awards received by units serving in Vietnam.  This pamphlet shows the 9th Medical Battalion was cited for award of the:

* Meritorious Unit Commendation, for the period 1 January 1967 through 31 December 1967 by DAGO Number 67, dated 1968
* Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation, for the period 1 December 1966 through 30 June 1968 by DAGO Number 31, dated 1969
* Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation, for the period 19 December 1966 through 30 June 1968 by DAGO Number 59, dated 1969

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant demonstrated that he could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel as evidenced by the counseling he received for his poor performance and negative attitude.  Accordingly, his commander initiated separation action against him due to a personality disorder.  

2.  His separation action was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors.  The type of discharge directed and the reason for separation were both proper and equitable at the time.  However, it now appears his overall service record and his diagnosed personality disorder warrant upgrading of his discharge to fully honorable as directed by the above-referenced Army memoranda.  Therefore, he is entitled to an upgrade in his discharge to honorable.

3.  He listed his SSN as X99-XX-XXXX upon his entry on active duty and this is the SSN he used throughout his service.  It appears an error occurred during the preparation of his DD Form 214 for the period ending 4 December 1968 and his SSN was incorrectly entered as X09-XX-XXXX.  Therefore, he is entitled to correction of his DD Form 214 for the period ending 4 December 1968 to show his correct SSN.

4.  The evidence of record shows the applicant held a medical MOS and was assigned to the medical company of an infantry battalion in Vietnam.  During his Vietnam service, he met the eligibility for the Combat Medical Badge as evidenced by his award of the Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device for heroism in connection with military operations against a hostile force in Vietnam on 22 August 1967.  Therefore, it would be appropriate to award him the Combat Medical Badge and correct his records to show this badge.

5.  GO awarded him the Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device which is not shown on his DD Form 214; therefore, he is entitled to correction of his DD Form 214 to show this award.

6.  He participated in two campaigns while serving in Vietnam.  Therefore, he is entitled to twp bronze service stars for wear on his already-awarded Vietnam Service Medal and correction of his DD Form 214 accordingly.

7.  He served in Vietnam over 12 months.  Therefore, he is entitled to a second Overseas Service Bar and correction of his DD Form 214 accordingly.  

8.  General orders awarded his unit in Vietnam the Meritorious Unit Commendation, Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation, and Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation during his period of assignment to the unit.  Therefore, he is entitled to correction of his DD Form 214 to show these unit awards.

BOARD VOTE:

____x___  ___x____  ___x____  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

* awarding him the Combat Medical Badge for service in Vietnam on 
22 August 1967
* deleting from his DD Form 214 for the period ending 4 December 1968 the Vietnam Service Medal and One Overseas Service Bar
* deleting from his DD Form 214 for the period ending 4 December 1968 the SSN in item 3 and replacing it with the SSN as shown on his DD Form 214 for the period ending 11 July 1968
* adding to item 24 of his DD Form 214 for the period ending 4 December 1968 the:

* Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device
* Combat Medical Badge
* Vietnam Service Medal with two bronze service stars
* Two Overseas Service Bars
* Meritorious Unit Commendation
* Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation
* Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation

* issuing the applicant a new DD Form 214 for the period ending 4 December 1968 reflecting his character of service as honorable and incorporating the changes listed above
* issuing the applicant an Honorable Discharge Certificate, dated 4 December 1968, in lieu of the General Discharge Certificate of the same date now held by him



      _______ _   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)                                         AR20140001091





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140001091



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1