PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:            24 June 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999021020

	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. Gary C. Miller		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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 general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

3.  The applicant states that he asked for help and was discharged instead.  In support of his application, he submits a personal letter, dated 11 December 1998, wherein he discusses his recovery efforts, his Vietnam service and alcohol and drug problems.   He also submits an undated letter with 15 issues (see ISSUES letter), a copy of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record), Standard Form 89 (Report of Medical History) dated 19 August 1966, and two Standard Forms 603 (Health Record) dated 22 July 1969 and 17 July 1969.  

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted on 20 March 1967 for a period of 3 years.  He was transferred to Vietnam on 3 December 1967 and honorably discharged for immediate reenlistment on 20 February 1968.  He reenlisted on 21 February 1968 for a period of 3 years.     

5.  On 2 July 1968, while assigned to Vietnam, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for failure to obey a lawful order.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and 7 days of extra duty.

6.  NJP was again imposed against the applicant on 8 August 1968 for being in an off-limits area.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay. 

7.  The applicant was transferred to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, on 31 January 1969.

8.  The applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation on 28 April 1969 and was diagnosed with a passive dependent personality disorder manifested by repeated drug abuse.  The psychiatrist determined that the applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.  The psychiatrist recommended separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. 

9.  On 2 May 1969 the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness.  

10.  The applicant went AWOL on 5 May 1969 and returned to military control on 20 May 1969. 

11.  On 22 May 1969, the applicant acknowledged notification of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, waived his right to a hearing before a board of officers and elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.  

12.  On 17 June 1969 the applicant’s commander submitted a recommendation to discharge the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, paragraph 6a(1), for unfitness because of frequent incidents of discreditable nature with civil and military authorities on drug abuse.  He recommended that he be separated with an undesirable discharge. 

13.  The applicant went AWOL on 3 July 1969 and returned to military control on 16 July 1969.

14.  On 7 July 1969 the intermediate commander recommended separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, paragraph 6b(2) for unsuitability by reason of character and behavior disorders.  He recommended separation with a general discharge.

15.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, paragraph 6b(2), on 16 July 1969, and directed that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

16.  Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 24 July 1969 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability by reason of character and behavior disorders.  He had served 1 year, 4 months and 4 days of total active service with 30 days lost time.

17.  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.

18.  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.  Notwithstanding the applicant’s contentions, his administrative separation on 24 July 1969 was accomplished in accordance with regulations then in effect.

2.  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.  

3.  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.

4.  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 separated from the service with an Honorable Discharge Certificate on 24 July 1969. 

2.  That the Department issue to him an Honorable Discharge Certificate, dated 24 July 1969, in lieu of the general discharge of the same date now held by him.

BOARD VOTE:  

RVO____  GCM____  CLG____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999021020	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990624	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19690724	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212  	
DISCHARGE REASON	UNSUITABILITY  BY REASON OF CHARACTER AND BEHAVIOR DISORDERS	
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.