PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:             18 August 1999                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:     AR1999016818

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Edward Williamson		Member	
	Ms. Sherri V. Ward 		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 award of the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM).

3.  The applicant states that he should have received the AFEM for his service in the Dominican Republic in 1965.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted on 22 April 1964 for a period of 3 years.  He completed training as a light weapons infantryman and was honorably discharged on 21 April 1965 for immediate reenlistment.  He enlisted again on 22 April 1965 for a period of 6 years.  He served in Korea from 16 July 1965 to 6 September 1966 and served in Vietnam from 24 July 1969 to 24 July 1970.  On 2 December 1970 a psychiatric evaluation was conducted on the applicant and the psychiatric determined that “this man is suffering from a depressive reaction of moderate severity.  This is based on an underlying passive-dependent personality disorder which is chronic and not likely to be amenable to psychiatric therapy”.  On 26 February 1971 the applicant was separated with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-212, for unsuitability (character and behavior disorders).    

5.  The applicant’s DD Forms 214, which were authenticated in his own hand, do not show the AFEM as an authorized award.

6.  Item 38 (Record of Assignments) of the applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he served as a machine gunner in the Dominican Republic from 3 May 1965 to 21 July 1965. 

7.  Headquarters 1st Infantry Division General Orders Number 17612, dated
23 December 1969, shows the applicant was awarded the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious achievement for the period 24 July 1969 to 30 November 1969.  The Board notes this medal is not shown on the applicant’s DD Form 214.

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, for award of the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal for qualifying service after 1 July 1958 in U.S. military operations, U.S. operations in direct support of the United Nations, and U.S. operations of assistance for friendly foreign nations.  Qualifying service for this award includes the requirements to be a bona fide member in a unit and to be engaged in the operation or serve in the area of operations for
30 days, be engaged in direct support of the operation for 30 consecutive or
60 nonconsecutive days provided support involves entering the area of operations, be engaged in combat, participate as a member of an aircraft flying in support of the operation, or be recommended or attached to a unit recommended for award of the medal if the above criteria have not been met.  The regulation shows that military operations in the Dominican Republic from 28 April 1965 to 21 September 1966 qualifies for this award.

9.  Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability.  It provided, in pertinent part, for the 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.

10.  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 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. 

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Evidence of record shows the applicant served in the Dominican Republic from 3 May 1965 to 21 July 1965; therefore, he is entitled to correction of his military records to show award of the AFEM.

2.  The applicant was awarded the Army Commendation Medal; therefore, he is entitled to correction of his military records to show this medal.

3.  The applicant’s administrative separation on 26 February 1971 was accomplished in accordance with regulations then in effect.

4.  However, the applicant also had a character and behavior disorder which diminished his ability to perform and work satisfactorily at any job for any length of time in the military.  Although his misconduct and behavior is not condoned, his offenses were not of a criminal nature.  

5.  In view of the foregoing, it appears that the above-mentioned memorandums should be applied to his case and his discharge should be upgraded to honorable.

6.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected 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 awarded the AFEM, the Army Commendation Medal and that he was separated from the service with an Honorable Discharge Certificate on 26 February 1971. 

2.  That the Department issue to him an Honorable Discharge Certificate, dated 26 February 1971, in lieu of the general discharge of the same date now held by him.

BOARD VOTE:  

RVO____  EW_____  SVW____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999016818	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990818	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19710226	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsuitability (character and behavior disorders)	
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.0072	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.