IN THE CASE OF:  	  

		BOARD DATE:  26 February 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140008845 


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 correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show he received a medical or honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant also requests a personal appearance before the Board.

3.  The applicant states he is providing new arguments and new evidence that were not previously considered.

4.  The applicant provides documents he previously provided and a letter, dated 2 May 2014. 

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 AR20130007991 on 2 January 2014.  In addition, additional records pertaining to the applicant are addressed that were not made available to the ABCMR at the time of his initial request (emphasis added).

2.  As new arguments, the applicant, in effect, states:

	a.  His discharge was not equitable in that his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was due to male military sexual trauma (MMST) that affected the reason for his discharge and he explains why he was absent without leave (AWOL).  He also explains why he waived his rights and accepted an administrative discharge. 

	b.  In many ways, Army regulations have gotten better than they were in August 1971 regarding PTSD and MMST which did not exist at the time.  If they had existed then, he would have had a right to a PTSD evaluation prior to his discharge and his case would have been handled differently. 

	c.  He should have received a medical discharge.  When he requested a discharge for the good of the service on 15 November 1971 he also requested a physical and mental examination.  His counsel informed him that he would receive a complete medical examination prior to the completion and approval of his discharge.  However, no medical examination took place after he requested one. 

	d.  The Standard Form (SF) 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 8 November 1971, was created prior to his request for discharge. His actual request date was 15 November 1971.  The SF 88, dated 8 November 1971, was fraudulently created; he never received a separation medical examination.  Also, the separation stamp on the last page of the report appears to be transposed over a light duty and/or no duty scoliosis entry.

	e.  His discharge was not proper because he did not receive due process when he was not given the opportunity to plead guilty or not guilty to the AWOL charges.  Nowhere in his request for discharge for the good of the service was it mentioned that he was guilty or not guilty of the charges.

	f.  On the DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 22 September 1971, the accuser stated he was informed of the AWOL charges; however, he (the applicant) did not sign the form.  He could not have been informed of AWOL charges on 22 September 1971 when he was charged with being AWOL from 15 September through 15 October 1971.  This was a fraudulent Charge Sheet and he had ineffective legal counsel since his counsel did not inform him that a fraudulent Charge Sheet had been submitted. 

	g.  A request for discharge in lieu of court-martial cannot be submitted unless the case had been preferred with the idea that a special or general court-martial would be convened to hear the case as a lesser court does not have the authority to impose a punitive discharge.  However, the 22 September 1971 Charge Sheet shows the charges were referred for trial by a summary court-martial.

3.  As new evidence, the applicant provides a letter, dated 2 May 2014, wherein a psychiatrist with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center, Durham, NC, stated, in part, the applicant suffers from chronic, severe PTSD due to MMST he suffered long ago.  He has had psychiatric hospitalization due to his severe symptoms of PTSD.  He continues to have insomnia and nightmares related to MMST and PTSD.  He has been unable to maintain a job due to significant anxiety and medical problems.

4.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 August 1969 in the rank/grade of private (PVT)/E-1.  He completed basic training (BT) and on 3 November 1969 he was assigned to the 2nd Enlisted Student Company, Fort Rucker, AL for advanced individual training (AIT).  

5.  On 12 November 1969, he was reported in an AWOL status from his assigned unit and he was subsequently dropped from the rolls (DFR) as a deserter.  On 11 December 1969, he was returned to military control and assigned to the Personnel Control Facility (PCF), Fort Meade, MD.

6.  On 24 December 1969, he was convicted by a summary court-martial of being AWOL from 12 November to 11 December 1969.  He was sentenced, in part, to 30 days confinement.  He was confined at the PCF, Fort Meade, from 24 December 1969 to 17 January 1970.

7. On 24 January 1970, he was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 5th AIT Brigade, Fort Dix, NJ for AIT.  On 5 February 1970, he was reported in an AWOL status from his assigned unit and he was subsequently DFR as a deserter.  On 16 April 1970, he was returned to military control and assigned to the PCF, Fort Meade.

8.  On 22 April 1970, he was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 5 February to 15 April 1970.  He was sentenced, in part, to 4 months of confinement at hard labor.  

9.  The applicant provides and his record contains an SF 88, dated 23 April 1970, which shows he underwent a medical examination on that date.  The examining physician noted the applicant had severe scoliosis to the left of his mid-back, had limited range of motion, and could not bend forward.  He stated the applicant was not qualified for heavy work.  There is no evidence that shows he was issued a physical profile at that time.

10.  On 19 May 1970, he was assigned to the Correctional Training Facility, Fort Riley, KS.

11.  On 15 July 1970, he departed Fort Riley and was subsequently assigned to the PCF, Army Training Center, Infantry, Fort Dix.  On 28 July 1970, he was reported in an AWOL status from his assigned unit.  

12.  On 19 August 1971, he was apprehended and returned to military control at Fort Dix.  On 15 September 1971, he was reported as AWOL from his assigned unit.

13.  The applicant provides a DD Form 458, dated 22 September 1971, wherein it shows court-martial charges were to be preferred against him for being AWOL from 15 to 22 September 1971.  However, this form contains no signatures, was not processed, and appears to have been completed in error.  There is no evidence that shows charges were preferred against him at that time for this period of AWOL or that shows he was returned to military control on 22 September 1971.

14.  His record contains a DA Form 19-32 (Military Police Report), dated 1 November 1971, completed at Fort Meade, wherein it stated the applicant was apprehended by civil authorities on 22 October 1971 in Philadelphia, PA, for larceny of an automobile.  He was arraigned on 23 October 1971 and placed in the Detention Center, Philadelphia.  On 28 October 1971, he was returned to military control at the Military Police Detachment, Philadelphia, and confined in the U.S. Navy Brig.  He had a civil court date of 2 February 1972.  On 3 November 1971, he was placed in pre-trial confinement at the Post Stockade, Fort Meade.

15.  On 8 November 1971, the applicant underwent a separation medical examination at the U.S. Army Hospital, Fort Meade.  The SF 88, dated 8 November 1971, shows the examining physician stated the applicant was qualified for separation.  It appears the physician signed the form and the word "SEPARATION" was stamped over his signature.  This SF 88 shows the applicant did not have a physical profile and his PULHES were "111111."

16.  On 11 November 1971, court-martial charges were preferred against him for one specification each of being AWOL from 28 July 1970 to 19 August 1971 and from 15 September to 22 October 1971.

17.  On 12 November 1971, he consulted with legal counsel who advised him of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of a request for discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.  

18.  On 15 November 1971, he requested discharge 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.  In his request, he acknowledged that he had not been subjected to coercion with respect to his request for a discharge and had been advised of the implications that were attached to it.  

19.  He further acknowledged that he understood if his request was accepted, he may be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He acknowledged he understood that as a result of such a discharge, he may be ineligible for many or all Army benefits, many or all benefits administered by the VA, and that he may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both State and Federal laws.  He also understood that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of an undesirable discharge.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

20.  The Charge Sheet, dated 11 November 1971, and the SF 88, dated 8 November 1971, would have been attached to his request for a chapter 10 discharge as the instructions on his request stated, in part, that the request would include the Charge Sheet and the Report of Medical Examination.  A Soldier does not have the option to request a medical examination at the time he submits a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.

21.  On 22 November and 26 November 1971, respectively, his immediate and senior commanders recommended approval of his request for a discharge with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  Both commanders stated their recommendations were based on the number and length of the applicant's periods of AWOL.

22.  The separation authority subsequently approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  On 27 December 1971, he was discharged accordingly.

23.  The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged in the rank of PVT under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 - for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) characterization of service.  He was assigned separation program number (SPN) 246.  He completed 7 months and 9 days of net active service and he had 650 days (or 1 year, 10 months, and 15 days) of lost time due to being AWOL and/or in confinement.  

24.  Item 38 (Record of Assignments) of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he received the following conduct and efficiency ratings from:

* 1 September to 24 October 1969, "excellent" ratings
* 25 October to 11 November 1969, "unknown" ratings
* 12 November to10 December 1969, “unsatisfactory” ratings

25.  There is no evidence in his record that shows he ever reported he had been sexually abused by other male Soldiers during his period of active service.

26.  There is no evidence in his record, and he did not provide any evidence, that shows while serving on active duty he was treated for, or diagnosed with, any mental/medical condition/disorder that permanently prevented him from performing his assigned duties, was found to be unfitting, or required referral to a medical evaluation board (MEB) or physical evaluation board (PEB).  There is no evidence that shows while serving on active duty he ever received a permanent profile of "3" that would have required referral to an MEB/PEB. 

27.  On 18 November 1976 and 6 June 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge and determined his discharge was both proper and equitable.

28.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10, of the version in effect at the time, provided that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred.  An undesirable discharge was normally given to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service.

29.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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.

30.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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.

31.  Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) states ABCMR members will review all applications that are properly before them to determine the existence of an error or injustice; direct or recommend changes in military records to correct the error or injustice, if persuaded that material error or injustice exists and that sufficient evidence exists on the record; recommend a hearing when appropriate in the interest of justice; or deny applications when the alleged error or injustice is not adequately supported by the evidence and when a hearing is not deemed proper. The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record.  It is not an investigative body.  The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing.  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. 

32.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) governs the evaluation of physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability.  It states MEB's/PEB’s are convened to document a Soldier's medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is affected by the Soldier's status.  A decision is made as to the Soldier's medical qualification for retention based on the criteria in Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3.

33.  Army Regulation 635-40 further states the mere presence of impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability.  In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature/degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the member reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office, rank, grade, or rating.  The Army must find that a service member is physically unfit to reasonably perform his or her duties and assign an appropriate disability rating before that service member can be medically separated or retired.

34.  The Army physical profile serial system is based primarily upon the function of body systems and their relation to military duties.  The functions of the various organs, systems, and integral parts of the body are considered.  An individual having a numeric designation of "1" under all factors is considered to possess a high level of medical fitness.  A profile containing one or more numerical designations of 3 signifies the individual has one or more medical condition that may require significant limitations.  A permanent profile of 3 or 4 or would require referral to an MEB.

35.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rating of at least 30 percent.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years of service and a disability rating at less than 30 percent.
36.  PTSD can occur after someone goes through a traumatic event like combat, assault, or disaster.  The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and it provides standard criteria and common language for the classification of mental disorders.  In 1980, the APA added PTSD to the third edition of its DSM-III nosologic classification scheme.  Although controversial when first introduced, the PTSD diagnosis has filled an important gap in psychiatric theory and practice. From an historical perspective, the significant change ushered in by the PTSD concept was the stipulation that the etiological agent was outside the individual (i.e., a traumatic event) rather than an inherent individual weakness (i.e., a traumatic neurosis).  The key to understanding the scientific basis and clinical expression of PTSD is the concept of "trauma." 

37.  PTSD is unique among psychiatric diagnoses because of the great importance placed upon the etiological agent, the traumatic stressor.  In fact, one cannot make a PTSD diagnosis unless the patient has actually met the "stressor criterion," which means that he or she has been exposed to an event that is considered traumatic.  Clinical experience with the PTSD diagnosis has shown, however, that there are individual differences regarding the capacity to cope with catastrophic stress.  Therefore, while most people exposed to traumatic events do not develop PTSD, others go on to develop the full-blown syndrome.  Such observations have prompted the recognition that trauma, like pain, is not an external phenomenon that can be completely objectified.  Like pain, the traumatic experience is filtered through cognitive and emotional processes before it can be appraised as an extreme threat.  Because of individual differences in this appraisal process, different people appear to have different trauma thresholds, some more protected from and some more vulnerable to developing clinical symptoms after exposure to extremely stressful situations.

38.  The DSM fifth revision (DSM-5) was released in May 2013.  This revision includes changes to the diagnostic criteria for PTSD and Acute Stress Disorder.  The PTSD diagnostic criteria were revised to take into account things that have been learned from scientific research and clinical experience.  The revised diagnostic criteria for PTSD include a history of exposure to a traumatic event that meets specific stipulations and symptoms from each of four symptom clusters:  intrusion, avoidance, negative alterations in cognitions and mood, and alterations in arousal and reactivity.  The sixth criterion concerns duration of symptoms; the seventh assesses functioning; and the eighth criterion clarifies symptoms as not attributable to a substance or co-occurring medical condition.


a. Criterion A, stressor:  The person was exposed to: death, threatened death, actual or threatened serious injury, or actual or threatened sexual violence, as follows: (one required) 

(1) Direct exposure. 

		(2)  Witnessing, in person.

		(3)  Indirectly, by learning that a close relative or close friend was exposed to trauma.  If the event involved actual or threatened death, it must have been violent or accidental.

		(4)  Repeated or extreme indirect exposure to aversive details of the event(s), usually in the course of professional duties (e.g., first responders, collecting body parts; professionals repeatedly exposed to details of child abuse). This does not include indirect non-professional exposure through electronic media, television, movies, or pictures.

	b.  Criterion B, intrusion symptoms:  The traumatic event is persistently re-experienced in the following way(s): (one required) 

		(1)  Recurrent, involuntary, and intrusive memories. 

		(2)  Traumatic nightmares. 

		(3)  Dissociative reactions (e.g., flashbacks) which may occur on a continuum from brief episodes to complete loss of consciousness. 

		(4)  Intense or prolonged distress after exposure to traumatic reminders. 

		(5)  Marked physiologic reactivity after exposure to trauma-related stimuli. 

	c.  Criterion C, avoidance:  Persistent effortful avoidance of distressing trauma-related stimuli after the event: (one required)

		(1)  Trauma-related thoughts or feelings.

		(2)  Trauma-related external reminders (e.g., people, places, conversations, activities, objects, or situations).

	d.  Criterion D, negative alterations in cognitions and mood:  Negative alterations in cognitions and mood that began or worsened after the traumatic event: (two required)
		(1)  Inability to recall key features of the traumatic event (usually dissociative amnesia; not due to head injury, alcohol, or drugs).

		(2)  Persistent (and often distorted) negative beliefs and expectations about oneself or the world (e.g., "I am bad," "The world is completely dangerous").

		(3)  Persistent distorted blame of self or others for causing the traumatic event or for resulting consequences.

		(4)  Persistent negative trauma-related emotions (e.g., fear, horror, anger, guilt, or shame).

		(5)  Markedly diminished interest in (pre-traumatic) significant activities.
Feeling alienated from others (e.g., detachment or estrangement).

		(6)  Constricted affect: persistent inability to experience positive emotions. 

	e.  Criterion E, alterations in arousal and reactivity:  Trauma-related alterations in arousal and reactivity that began or worsened after the traumatic event: (two required)

		(1)  Irritable or aggressive behavior.

		(2)  Self-destructive or reckless behavior.

		(3)  Hypervigilance.

		(4)  Exaggerated startle response.

		(5)  Problems in concentration.

		(6)  Sleep disturbance.

	f.  Criterion F, duration:  Persistence of symptoms (in Criteria B, C, D, and E) for more than one month. 

	g.  Criterion G, functional significance:  Significant symptom-related distress or functional impairment (e.g., social, occupational).

	h.  Criterion H, exclusion:  Disturbance is not due to medication, substance use, or other illness. 

39.  As a result of the extensive research conducted by the medical community and the relatively recent issuance of revised criteria regarding the causes, diagnosis and treatment of PTSD the Department of Defense (DOD) acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge.  It is also acknowledged that in some cases this undiagnosed condition of PTSD may have been a mitigating factor in the Soldier's misconduct which served as a catalyst for their discharge.  Research has also shown that misconduct stemming from PTSD is typically based upon a spur of the moment decision resulting from temporary lapse in judgment; therefore, PTSD is not a likely cause for either premeditated misconduct or misconduct that continues for an extended period of time.  

40.  In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged UOTHC and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service.

41.  BCM/NRs are not courts, nor are they investigative agencies.  Therefore, the determinations will be based upon a thorough review of the available military records and the evidence provided by each applicant on a case-by-case basis.  When determining if PTSD was the causative factor for an applicant's misconduct and whether an upgrade is warranted, the following factors must be carefully considered:

* Is it reasonable to determine that PTSD or PTSD-related conditions existed at the time of discharge?
* Does the applicant's record contain documentation of the occurrence of a traumatic event during the period of service?
* Does the applicant's military record contain documentation of a diagnosis of PTSD or PTSD-related symptoms?
* Did the applicant provide documentation of a diagnosis of PTSD or PTSD-related symptoms rendered by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider?
* Was the applicant's condition determined to have existed prior to military service?
* Was the applicant's condition determined to be incurred during or aggravated by military service?
* Do mitigating factors exist in the applicant's case?
* Did the applicant have a history of misconduct prior to the occurrence of the traumatic event?
* Was the applicant's misconduct premeditated?
* How serious was the misconduct?

42.  Although the DOD acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge, it is presumed that they were properly discharged based upon the evidence that was available at the time.  Conditions documented in the record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge.  In cases in which PTSD or PTSD-related conditions may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge; those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the UOTHC characterization of service.  Corrections Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service of UOTHC.  Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat-related PTSD or PTSD-related conditions as a causative factor in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct.  PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct.  Corrections Boards will also exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causeal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  As such, he voluntarily requested a discharge to avoid trial by a court-martial. 

2.  Notwithstanding the applicant's contentions, the evidence of record shows his administrative discharge for misconduct was accomplished in compliance with applicable law and regulations in effect at the time with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  As he submitted a request for a discharge in lieu of a court-martial, he would not have the opportunity to plead guilty to the court-martial charges of being AWOL on two occasions.  The characterization of his discharge was commensurate with the reason for discharge and overall record of military service in accordance with the governing regulations in effect at the time.

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

4.  At the time of the applicant's discharge, PTSD was largely unrecognized by the medical community and DOD.  However, both the medical community and DOD now have a more thorough understanding of PTSD and its potential to serve as a causative factor in a Soldier's misconduct when the condition is not diagnosed and treated in a timely fashion.  Soldiers who suffered from PTSD and were separated solely for misconduct subsequent to a traumatic event warrant careful consideration for the possible recharacterization of their overall service.

5.  A review of the applicant's record does not show he ever reported that he was sexually abused by other male Soldiers while serving on active duty.  However, his DA Form 20 shows he had "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings while in BT, "unknown" ratings during his first assignment during AIT, and his periods of going AWOL started after he was assigned to AIT.  He now provides medical evidence that shows he has been diagnosed with chronic, severe PTSD due to MMST that he suffered long ago.  Therefore, it is reasonable to believe his PTSD due to MMST existed at the time of discharge. 

6.  It is concluded that PTSD was a causative factor in the misconduct that led to the discharge.  After carefully weighing that fact against the severity of the applicant's misconduct, there is sufficient mitigating evidence to warrant upgrading the characterization of the applicant's service to a general discharge under honorable conditions, in the rank/grade of private (PVT)/E-1 (the highest rank/grade he held during his military service).

7.  He is not entitled to an honorable discharge because an honorable discharge 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 meritorious.  Based on his extensive history of AWOL, his service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct also renders his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, when weighing the same above factors, the applicant's overall service does not rise to a fully honorable characterization of service.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

8.  With respect to the correction of his records to show he received a medical discharge, although he may have suffered from back pain due to scoliosis and received an examination that stated he was not qualified for heavy work at that time, the evidence of record does not show and the applicant has not provided any evidence that shows he was ever diagnosed with or treated for any injury/condition while serving on active duty that permanently prevented him from performing his duties and would require referral to an MEB.  There is no evidence that shows he ever received a permanent profile rating of "3" that would require referral to an MEB.  The mere presence of impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability.  Therefore, he is not entitled to a medical discharge. 

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

____X___  ____X___  ____X___ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant partial amendment of the ABCMR’s decision in Docket Number AR20130007991, dated 2 January 2014.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by re-issuing the applicant's DD Form 214 to show the characterization of service as "General, Under Honorable Conditions" and his rank/grade as private/E-1 with an effective date of 18 August 1969.











2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to a medical or honorable discharge.



      ___________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)                                         AR20140008845



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140008845



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1