PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            10 December 1998 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12681

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. James M. Alward		Member	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
            records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge be upgraded
to honorable and that his reentry (RE ) code be omitted from his DD Form 214.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was informed at the time of his
discharge that he would be recalled to active duty within 6 months.  He also
states that after being recalled he would be able to complete his enlistment and that this was the only reason he accepted a general discharge.

4.  He enlisted on 18 July 1955 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed his training as a wireman and received excellent conduct and efficiency ratings.  He continued to serve until he was honorably discharged under the provision of AR 635-205, for early release to attend school.  He was transferred to the USAR. 

5.	After a break in service, he enlisted for a period of 3 years on 22 April 1963.

6.  On 1 October 1963, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for being absent without proper authority from his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of 14 days restriction and extra duty.

7.  On 14 December 1963, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failure to
obey a lawful order issued by a commissioned officer.  His punishment consisted of 7 days extra duty and restriction.

8.  The applicant underwent a psychiatric examination on 5 March 1964, which diagnosed the applicant as having an emotional instability reaction, chronic,
severe, manifested by impulsive behavior and poor judgement when under
stress, an inability to follow through with past decisions, an inability to tolerate
present stress for future reward, and a marked difficulty in adapting to the needs
of the Army despite his attempts to do so. 

9.  On 10 March 1964, the commander submitted his recommendation to eliminate the applicant under the provision of AR 635-209, for unsuitability.  He based his recommendation on the applicant’s psychiatric evaluation report.  He also stated that the applicant had considerable difficulty in adjusting to Army life and is apparently unable to benefit from experience.  

10.  After consulting with counsel, he waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, and declined representation by military counsel, and opted not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

11.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 
6 April 1964 and directed that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

12.  Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, on 23 April 1964 for unsuitability.  He had served 3 years, 10 months, and 27 days of total active service.  He was issued an RE code of RE-3.

13.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 19 August 1968.  The ADRB determined that that
his discharge was proper, and denied his request on 19 December 1968.

14.  Army Regulation 635-209, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority
for the separation of enlisted personnel for unsuitability.  Paragraph 3 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel where there was evidence of inaptitude, character and behavior disorders, apathy, enuresis, alcoholism, or homosexuality.

15.  Army regulation 635-200 was revised on 1 December 1976, following settlement of a civil suit.  Thereafter, the type of discharge and the character of service were to be determined solely by the individual’s military record during the current enlistment.  Further, any separation for unsuitability, based on a 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 upgrades of discharges based on personality disorders.  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 were determined to be “clear and demonstrable reasons” which would justify a less fully honorable discharge.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s administrative separation on 23 April 1964 was accomplished in accordance with the regulations then in effect, with no indication of any violations of the applicant’s rights.

2.	While the applicant’s act’s of misconduct are not condoned by this Board, 
his general discharge appears to be unduly harsh considering that the applicant had a character and behavior disorder which rendered him unsuitable for military duty.

3.	Consequently, it appears that the above mentioned memorandums should be
applied to his case and that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable.

4.	 The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted with his
application or the evidence of record that the RE code issued to him was incorrect.

5.  In view of the foregoing, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below. 

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was separated from the service with an Honorable Discharge Certificate on 23 April 1964.

2.  That the Department issue to him an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 23 April 1964, in lieu of the general discharge of the same date now held by him.  

3.	That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

__jhl____  ___ja ___  __sk   ___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12681	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	1998/12/10	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	 	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	 	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT PARTIAL	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  A40.00		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.