IN THE CASE OF:    

		BOARD DATE:  4 December 2014	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140018753 


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 correction of his military records to show his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge was upgraded to honorable.
   
2.  The applicant states he believes his discharge is unjust because he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and it was unknown to him at the time.  He contends that after he witnessed the death of another Soldier during airborne training he had a very difficult time coping with the disturbing mental effects of the incident.  If he had received the proper medical care, he could have continued in his service.

3.  The applicant provides copies of his:

* DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty)
* Affidavit, sworn on 24 April 2014
* Statement of Facts from his cousin, sworn on 24 April 2014
* Letter from his psychiatrist, dated 25 May 2014
* Letter from the National Personnel Records Center, dated 7 October 2014 with his service medical records attached (20 pages)

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 12 July 1978, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.

   a.  On or about 7 September 1978, he completed the Basic Combat Training course at Fort Jackson, SC.  He was immediately enrolled in the Infantry Advanced Individual Training (AIT) course at Fort Benning, GA.
   
   b.  On or about 26 October 1978, he completed AIT and was immediately enrolled in the Basic Airborne Course for parachutist training.
   
   c.  On or about 22 November 1978, he completed parachutist training and was assigned to Fort Bragg, NC.

3.  On 7 December 1978, the applicant was assigned to the 1st Battalion (Airborne), 505th Infantry Regiment, for duty as an automatic rifleman.

4.  The applicant went into an absent without leave (AWOL) status from on or about 5 February to 13 August 1979 (188 days) until he surrendered to military authorities at Fort Bragg, NC.  

5.  On 13 August 1979, court-martial charges were immediately preferred against him under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for violation of Article 86 due to being AWOL.

6.  On 15 August 1979, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation.  His behavior was found to be normal.  He was fully alert and oriented.  His mood was level.  His thinking was clear.  His thought content was normal and his memory was good.  The applicant showed no significant mental illness.  He was mentally responsible.  He was able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.  He had the mental capacity to understand and to participate in board proceedings.  The report makes no mention of any traumatic event that may have occurred prior to his period of AWOL.

7.  On 15 August 1979, the applicant underwent a medical examination.  A review of his Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination) and Standard Form 93 (Report of Medical History) shows the applicant was medically qualified for separation.  There was no mention of him suffering from any kind of mental stress resulting from his experiences while assigned to Fort Benning, GA for parachutist training.  He signed the Standard Form 93 certifying that he had reviewed the foregoing information supplied by him and that it is true and complete to the best of his knowledge.

8.  On 15 August 1979, after consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights and options, the applicant submitted a formal request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He acknowledged he had been advised of and understood his rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and that he could receive a UOTHC discharge which would deprive him of many or all of his benefits as a veteran, that he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received a UOTHC discharge.

9.  In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated that he understood by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge against him, or to a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He further acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request was approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.

10.  On 24 August 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued a DD Form 794A (Under Other than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate).  On 4 September 1979, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  He had completed a total of 7 months and 15 days of creditable active service.

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

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations):

	a.  Paragraph 3-7a states 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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.
	b.  Paragraph 3-7b states 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.  

13.  The applicant’s Affidavit and his cousin’s statement of facts both discuss their experiences of watching a Soldier perform a free fall demonstration during which his third chute failed to deploy after he had deployed and released his primary and secondary chutes.  The Soldier fell to his death.  They further state they see each other often and still bear the burden of the trauma.  Their memories have not faded and are just as if the event happened yesterday.

14.  On 25 May 2014, a psychiatrist wrote a 3-page summary of his psychiatric evaluation of the applicant.  The applicant was first seen by this psychiatrist on 25 April 2014, when the applicant, who was accompanied by his cousin, related his experiences of seeing another Soldier fall to his death during a parachuting demonstration.  Based on the applicant’s statement and complaints of worsening depressive and anxiety symptoms that began after the traumatic event, the psychiatrist concluded the applicant initially suffered from an acute stress disorder in the first month following the trauma which subsequently evolved into PTSD.  Furthermore, the applicant contends that his chain of command discouraged him from seeking counseling by the chaplain.  He was told to be a man and stay in his unit.  In the psychiatrist professional opinion, the applicant was then and remains today to be suffering from PSTD.

15.  A review of the service medical records provided by the applicant failed to reveal any reference to him being traumatized by the training accident discussed in this case.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends his UOTHC discharge should be upgraded because he was unknowingly suffering from PTSD at the time.

2.  The applicant's administrative discharge was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  A review of the medical evidence of record at the time of the applicant's discharge failed to reveal the applicant was suffering from any mental anxiety or stress.  It is reasonable to believe that his chain of command may not have been supportive of him taking his problems to the chaplain or to a psychiatrist prior to his lengthy period of AWOL.  However, later, after he had surrendered and underwent both a mental and physical evaluation, there still is no evidence showing he discussed his mental problems with any medical personnel or even that he had any depression or anxiety problems.

4.  There is no evidence available to sufficiently support his contention that his lengthy period of AWOL was the direct result of PTSD.

5.  The subsequent diagnosis by a psychiatrist in May 2014 appears to have been based on a single interview wherein the applicant and his cousin related their experiences during parachutist training.  Unfortunately, there is no available official documentary evidence to support their contentions that the training accident occurred, or more importantly that he suffered any stress as a result.  It has been more than 35 years since the applicant was discharged.  Accordingly, it cannot be determined what the catalyst was for any PTSD the applicant may have now.

6.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant's request should be denied.

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)                                         AR20110020309



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140018753



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1