2.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge.  He states that during his last tour of duty he was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

3.  The applicant’s military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on      31 July 1961 and was honorably discharged on 24 July 1966.  He reenlisted on 23 March 1967 and received a general discharge on 23 December 1967 for unsuitability, character and behavior disorder (diagnosed with emotional instability reaction).  After a 7 May 1970 psychiatric evaluation found no evidence of any psychiatric illness or emotional instability, he was granted a waiver to reenlist on 31 August 1970.

4.  There is no record of disciplinary actions until 9 August 1973, when court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with six specifications of intent to defraud by uttering a check with insufficient funds available and one specification of being absent without leave (AWOL) from       20 - 27 July 1973.

5.  On 9 August 1973, in a memorandum from his commander through the chain of command recommending trial by court-martial, his commander noted that the applicant’s character prior to the offenses charged had been unsatisfactory.

6. On 6 September 1973, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.  He elected to submit a statement in his own behalf.  No statement is attached, but several character references are.  Also included is a sworn statement from his wife wherein she states that before he left for Korea, he gave her $1,400 to deposit in the bank.  She did not deposit the money in the bank and failed to tell him so.  He wrote some checks on the account and failed to tell her he had done so.

7.  On 13 September 1973, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.

8.  On 2 October 1973, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

9.  On 15 October 1973, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, with a discharge UOTHC.  He had completed 9 years, 6 months and 7 days of creditable active service.  His DD Form 214 reflects no lost time and does not list all his awards and decorations.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

11.  The applicant’s prior discharge had been accomplished under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, which 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 for unsuitability.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 superseded AR 635-212 and 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.

13.  On 1 March 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation of 15 October 1973 was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  Competent military medical authority examined the applicant prior to his separation and found him qualified for separation.  Prior to his last enlistment, he had been examined and found to have no evidence of any psychiatric illness and was given a waiver to reenlist.

2.  The character of discharge given was appropriate considering the seriousness of the charges and the fact that his commander had remarked that his character prior to being charged had been unsatisfactory.

3.  The applicant’s administrative separation on 23 December 1967 also was accomplished in accordance with regulations then in effect.  However, it now appears the applicant’s overall service record prior to that discharge and his diagnosed personality disorder warrant upgrading his discharge to fully honorable as directed by the above-referenced Army memorandums.

4.  It is also noted that the applicant’s character and efficiency ratings for his first period of service from 31 July 1961 until his discharge on 24 July 1966 had all been excellent.  This would make him eligible for the Army Good Conduct Medal.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

     a.  adding the Army Good Conduct Medal to his DD Form 214, effective date of discharge 24 July 1966;.

     b.  showing that the applicant was separated from the service with an Honorable Discharge Certificate for his period of service ending 23 November 1967;

     c.  issuing to him an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 23 November 1967, in lieu of the general discharge of the same date now held by him;

     d.   adding the Army Good Conduct Medal to his DD Form 214, effective date of discharge 30 April 1971; and
     e.  adding the Air Medal, the Army Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal with 1 silver service star, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, and the Aircraft Crewman Badge to his DD Form 214, effective date of discharge 15 October 1973,

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

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION

                                                                                                          
					 	   CHAIRPERSON