DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

SMS
Docket No: 5350-07
2 September 2008

From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy

Subj: AVAL RECORD O

 

REVIEW OF Ni

    

Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552

 

Encl: (1) Case Summary
(2) Subject’s naval record

1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a
former enlisted member of the United States Marine Corps,
applied to this Board requesting an upgrade of the undesirable
discharge (UD) that he received on 6 September 1968.

2. The Board, consisting ( ion and
wai reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and

injustice on 27 August 2008, and pursuant to its regulations,
determined that the corrective action indicated below should be
taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary
material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures,

naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and
policies.

3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record
pertaining to Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice
finds as follows:

a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all
administrative remedies available under existing law and
regulations within the Department of the Navy.

b. On 2 June 1964, Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps
at age 21. At that time, he had completed 12 years of
education and attained average test scores. On 19 May 1965, he
reported to Vietnam and served as a rifleman. He subsequently
participated in five combat operations and was awarded the
Vietnam Service Medal with two stars, Republic of Vietnam
Campaign Medal with a device, Navy Unit Commendation, National
Defense Service Medal, and letter of commendation for his
outstanding performance of duty for his participation in a
squad size ambush action against 100 of the enemy. On
28 January 1966, he departed Vietnam. At that time his average

proficiency and conduct marks were both 4.1.

c. On 17 March 1966, Petitioner reported to a stateside duty
station and was assigned to 30 days of mess duty on that same
day. During the period 16 May to 26 July 1966, he had two
nonjudicial punishments (NJP's) and was convicted by a summary
court-martial (SCM) for three instances of unauthorized absence
(UA) totaling about 29 days. On 8 August 1966, he received a
psychiatric evaluation after being referred by his commanding
officer. The evaluation stated that he was depressed secondary
to experiencing loss of several friends in Vietnam, rejection
by his girl friend, and financial hardships at home. The
evaluation concluded that there was no evidence of psychosis or

mental deficiencies.

d. On 9 November 1966, Petitioner had NJP for a brief
instance of UA. On 23 May 1967, he was assigned to mess duty.
During the period 29 May to 30 June 1967, he was in a UA
status. On 27 July 1967, he was convicted by a special court~
martial (SPCM) of the 32 day period of UA. On 5 October 1967,
he had NUP for a two day period of UA. During the period
14 October to 10 November 1967, he was in a UA status. On
30 November 1967, he was convicted by a SPCM of this offense,
but litigation was later terminated and no further rehearing

was authorized.

e. On 2 February 1968, Petitioner received a psychiatric
evaluation that diagnosed him as having a passive-aggressive
personality manifested by a poor service record, defective
judgment, and impulsive behavior. On 17 April 1968, he was
apprehended by civilian authorities for disorderly conduct. On
4 June 1968, he was convicted by a SCM for UA during the period
18 to 20 April 1968. During the period 7 June to 12 July 1968,
he was in a UA status. On 7 August 1968, he requested a UD for
the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial for the
35 day period of UA. On 22 August 1968, the separation
authority approved his request for a UD. On 9 September 1968,
he was separated with a UD for the good for the good of the
service to avoid trial by court-martial.

f. In his application, Petitioner states that he was
recently diagnosed as having Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD) and that he displayed symptoms of PTSD as early as 1966,
but the PTSD diagnosis did not exist at that time. With his
application, he provided letters of character reference from
family members who states that it was understood that their
uncle did not return from Vietnam as the man that he was before
he left, and that no one knew how to help him. With his
application, he also provided psychiatric treatment records
from 10 October 2006 to 9 April 2007, and a letter from the
treating psychiatrist, Dr. Ehtesham, who states that he is
diagnosed as having severe PTSD and major depressive disorder,
which is secondary to his loss of friends during the war.

Dr. Ehtesham further states that Petitioner's depression began
in 1966 and worsened by 1968, and that he has no insurance for

his medications and needs veterans' benefits.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all evidence of record, the

Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants relief.
Specifically, the Board believes that his disciplinary actions
were properly taken and his discharge was in accordance with
regulations. However, the Board considers his unblemished
service in Vietnam, participation in combat operations, and
above average proficiency and conduct marks at the time he
departed Vietnam. Furthermore, the Board considers his
diagnosis of having PTSD and believes that his post service
Vietnam psychiatric evaluations and change in his conduct
support this diagnosis and his contention of having
difficulties coping. Therefore, as a matter of clemency, the
Board concludes that his separation should be changed to a

general discharge.

RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that
he received a general discharge on 6 September 1968, vice the
UD actually issued on that date.

b. That a copy of this Report of Proceedings be filed in
Petitioner's naval record.

c. That upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs
informed that Petitioner's application was received by the

Board on 6 June 2007.
4. It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's
review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and
complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above

entitled matter.

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN BRIAN J. GEORGE
Recorder Acting Recorder

5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section
6(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of
Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulation, Section 723.6(e))
and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby
announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken under the
authority of reference (a), has been approved by the Board on
behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.

\ gy i
W. ‘DEAN P F

Executive Di