2.  The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable or a general under honorable conditions discharge.  He states, in effect, that at age 19 he was diagnosed with testicular cancer.  One testicle was removed and he was told his life expectancy was not good.  At first, he was told that he would be discharged with 100 percent disability and then told he would be staying in the Army.  At this time also, his father died and his son was born.  He couldn’t handle all the pressures, so he went absent without leave (AWOL).  After each instance of AWOL, the Military Police found him at home either caring for his father or mourning his death or caring for his new born son and his wife.

3.  The applicant’s military records show that he was born on 13 September 1946.  He completed 8 years of formal education.  He was inducted into the Army on 7 December 1965 for 2 years.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 16C (Hercules Missile Crewman).

4.  Most of the applicant’s medical records are unavailable.  The only document relating to his cancer treatment is a clinical record noting his date of hospital discharge as 11 October 1966.  It noted he had undergone a radical retroperitoneal node dissection (left testicle removal) and that upon return from convalescent leave patient was to be evaluated by a Physical Evaluation Board for the possibility of returning to duty or discharge.

5.  On 13 February 1967, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL for the period 11 October - 27 December 1966.  He was sentenced to be reduced to pay grade E-1 and to 30 days restriction.

6.  On 29 June 1967, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL for the periods 14 - 18 April 1967 and 19 April - 12 June 1967.  His approved sentence was to be confined at hard labor for 6 months and to forfeit $37 pay for 6 months.

7.  On 10 July 1967, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation.  The diagnosis was found to be:  personality, inadequate, chronic, severe, manifested by inability to adjust to military environment, symptoms of chronic anxiety.  Predisposition:  severe; lifelong history of adaptation problems.

8.  On 26 July 1967, the company commander initiated separation action under Army Regulation 635-212.  The applicant had no previous record of any disciplinary action taken other than for these AWOLs.  The applicant was advised of his rights by counsel on 26 July 1967.  He waived his right to consideration of his case by a board of officers; waived personal appearance before a board; elected not to make a statement on his behalf; and waived representation by counsel.

9.  On 7 August 1967, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.

10.  On 7 August 1967, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed issuance of a discharge UOTHC.

11.  On 22 August 1967, the applicant was discharged, with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of AR 635-212.  He had completed 11 months and 29 days of creditable active service and had 260 days of lost time.

12.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  The regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200, which superseded AR 635-212, was revised on   1 December 1976, following settlement of a civil suit.  Thereafter, the type of discharge and the character of service was to be determined solely by the individual's military record during the current enlistment. Further, any separation for unsuitability, based on 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 upgrade 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 was determined to be "clear and demonstrable reasons" which would justify a less than fully honorable discharge.

14.  There is no evidence the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s administrative separation on 22 August 1967 was accomplished in accordance with regulations then in effect.

2.  However, it now appears the applicant’s overall service record and his diagnosed personality disorder warrant upgrading his discharge to a general under honorable conditions as directed by the above-referenced Army memorandums.  His two special courts-martial for AWOL provide a clear and demonstrable reason why he should not receive a fully honorable discharge.

3.  In view of the foregoing, the interest of justice would best be served by correcting 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 is separated from the service with an General Discharge Certificate on 22 August 1967.

2.  That the Department issue to him a General Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 27 November 1967, in lieu of the general discharge of the same date now held by him.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION

                                                                                                          
					 	   CHAIRPERSON