PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            26 May 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999015177

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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 that his undesirable discharge be upgraded.  He notes that he did have one honorable discharge and that after his service in Vietnam he had “mental problems” he feels were not taken into account at the time he received his undesirable discharge.

3.  Records available to the Board indicate the applicant entered active duty on 29 March 1966 at the age of 19 with 11 years of formal education.  On 
21 September 1967, while assigned to an armor unit in Germany, he was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.

4.  In January 1968 the applicant was assigned to Vietnam.  While in Vietnam, he was punished on 5 separate occasions under Article 15 of the UCMJ for a variety of infractions, including failing to go to his appointed place of duty, disobeying an order, sleeping on duty and being outside of an authorized area.  He returned to the United States in January 1969 and on 18 February 1969 commenced a series of AWOL periods totaling more than 125 days.

5.  Although documents associated with the applicant’s administrative separation proceedings were not in available records it appears the applicant was recommended for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 after returning from one of his periods of AWOL.  His records do contain a 
12 August 1969 “Report of Psychiatric Evaluation” which noted the applicant suffered from a “character disorder, antisocial behavior.”  The evaluating psychiatrist recommended the applicant be separated.  His 16 September 1969 separation physical examination notes the applicant was qualified for separation with a psysical profile of 1-1-1-1-1-2 which reflected his “personality disorder.”

6.  On 3 December 1969 the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.  At the time of his separation he had a total of 3 years, 3 months, and 28 days of active Federal service.

7.  Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability.  In pertinent part, it provided that an individual was subject to separation for unfitness because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit-forming drugs.  When separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.  It also provided for a discharge due to unsuitability of those individuals with character and behavior disorders and disorders of intelligence as determined by medical authority.  When separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual's entire record.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, currently in effect, provides that a soldiers separated as a result of a character, behavior or personality disorder, are discharged with an honorable characterization of service unless they had been convicted of an offense by general court-martial or convicted by more than one special court-martial.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board presumes that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations then in effect.  It appears, based on the applicant’s numerous incidents of misconduct, that his commanders chose to utilized that provision of Army Regulation 635-212 which provided for the separation of individuals for unsuitability and issuance of an undesirable discharge, in spite of the fact that the applicant had been diagnoses by competent medical authority as having a personality disorder.

2.  Nonetheless, the Board notes that the applicant was determined to be suffering from a personality disorder by a psychiatrist.  Under today’s standards the applicant would have been honorably discharged.  Therefore, when viewed in light of current Army policy, the applicant’s discharge should be upgraded to fully honorable as a matter of equity.

3.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was honorably discharged from active duty on 3 December 1969.

BOARD VOTE:  

__mdm___  __aao___  __bje___  GRANT AS STATED IN DISSENT FORMS

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999015177	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990526	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 110.00		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.