RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           31 January 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050009935


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Terry L. Placek               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Bernard P. Ingold             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. John G. Heck                  |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration of his request for
an upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD).

2.  The applicant questions the veracity of the evidence used by the Board
to make the decision to deny his request for an upgrade of his discharge.

3.  The applicant provides a supporting letter from a Member of Congress
and a two-page Chronological Record of Medical Care (SF 600) in support of
the application.

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
AR2004102999 on 16 September 2004.

2.  The applicant’s record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 20 March 1970.  He was trained in, awarded and
served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 12A (Pioneer), and the
highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private first
class (PFC).

3.  The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant
achievement, or service warranting specialty recognition.  It does reveal
an extensive disciplinary history that was documented in the 16 September
2004 ABCMR Record of Proceedings.

4.  A Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) report, dated 25 March 1971, on
file in the applicant’s record contains nine entries of incidents between
10 January 1966 and 15 March 1971.  Five occurred prior to his entering
military service and four after he entered active duty.

5.  On 17 August 1971, he was separated with an UD after completing a total
of
11 months and 14 days of creditable active military service, and accruing a
total of 164 days of time lost due to being absent without leave (AWOL) and
in confinement.

6.  On 18 July 1977, after carefully considering the applicant’s case, the
Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) found his discharge was proper and
equitable, and it voted to deny his request for an upgrade of his
discharge.
7.  On 21 August 1980, the ADRB, after careful consideration of a request
for reconsideration from the applicant, again voted to deny his request for
an upgrade of his discharge.

8.  During its original review of this case, the Board found that the
applicant was treated for a gunshot wound he received in an altercation
with two men who accused him of stealing.  It further found there was no
medical evidence to support his claim that he received drugs during his
hospitalization and treatment for this wound that resulted in his heroin
addiction.  The Board further found no evidence to support the applicant’s
claim that he was suffering from a Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
while serving on active duty that led to his misconduct.  It further found
that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with
the regulations in effect at the time, and that all requirements of law and
regulation were met, and the rights of the applicant were fully protected
throughout the separation process.

9.  The Member of Congress supporting letter indicates the applicant has no
new evidence, but that he does question the veracity of the evidence the
Board used to deny an upgrade of his discharge.  It outlines information
regarding the medical records used and their lack of specific information
confirming the applicant was provided no pain drugs while hospitalized
after being shot, or that explain why the bullet was not removed during his
hospitalization.  It also asserts that the timeline of the applicant’s AWOL
and confinement periods support an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge
because they all took place after he was shot and there was no record of
disciplinary infractions prior to his being shot, which supports the PTSD
theory.  The letter also indicates that the applicant claims the medical
doctor who conducted his mental status evaluation was not a Psychiatrist,
and as a result, his diagnosis should be disregarded.  In conclusion, the
letter indicates the applicant’s conduct was consistent with someone
suffering from a PTSD and requests that matters raised be investigated.

10.  Army Regulation 15-185, sets forth the procedures for processing
requests to correct military records.  Paragraph 1-8 outlines the
responsibility of ABCMR members, and it states, in pertinent part, that
they will review all applications that are properly before them to
determine the existence of error or injustice.  It further stipulates that
they will deny applications when the alleged error or injustice is not
adequately supported by the evidence.  It further states that the Board is
not an investigative body and it begins its consideration of each case with
the presumption of administrative regularity, which is that what the Army
did is correct.  Finally, it stipulates that the applicant has the burden
of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The contentions raised in the supporting letter from the applicant’s
Member of Congress were carefully considered.  However, they fail to
provide a sufficient evidentiary basis to support amending of the original
Board decision in this case.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s discharge processing
was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All
requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant
were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, the
applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of short and
undistinguished service.

3.  Notwithstanding the personal statements of the applicant and the
assertions contained in the supporting letter, the evidence of record and
the independent evidence provided by the applicant fail to provide any
evidence showing he suffered from a PTSD while he was serving on active
duty.  Further, there is no reason to believe that the doctor who conducted
the mental status evaluation of the applicant during his separation
processing was not qualified to perform this function.  As a result, there
is no reason to substitute the theory that the applicant suffered from a
PTSD for the valid diagnosis of competent medical authority rendered at the
time, which was that he suffered from an Antisocial Personality, and that
he had a history of marked social inadaptability prior to and during his
tenure in the military.

4.  The assertion that the timeline of the applicant’s AWOL and confinement
show that all his infractions took place after he was shot, and that he had
no disciplinary problems prior to that was carefully considered.  However,
an FBI report on file confirms the applicant had a long history of
indiscipline dating back to 1966.  Further, he was shot less than four
months after he entered the Army, shortly after he completed his initial
training, during which time he had limited opportunity to engage in
misconduct.  As a result, there is insufficient evidence to show that his
being shot significantly changed his behavior, or that his indiscipline was
the result of his suffering from a PTSD.

5.  The questions raised about the validity of the medical records used by
the Board during its original review of this case was also carefully
considered.  While the two-page SF 600 in question is not a complete record
of his treatment for his entire seven day stay in the hospital, it does
confirm the applicant’s hospitalization was uneventful, and that he was not
prescribed medication upon his release.  As a result, the Board conclusion
that there was insufficient evidence to show that pain medication
prescribed during this hospital stay resulted in his addiction to heroin
was valid.
6.  By regulation, in order to justify correction of a military record the
applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise
satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The new
argument at this time fails to satisfy this requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___TLP__  ___BPI__  __JGH___  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 AR2004102999 on 16 September 2004.




            ____Terry L. Placek_____
                    CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050009935                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |AR2004102999  - 2004/09/16              |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/01/31                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1971/08/17                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-212                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Unfitness                               |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]