PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           17 November 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999024089

	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. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Mr. John N. Slone		Member	
	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		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 her general, under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.

3.  The applicant’s military records show that on 13 October 1958 she enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.  She successfully completed basic combat training and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort McClellan, Alabama.  Upon completion of AIT she was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 910 (Medical Corpsman) and assigned to Fort Jackson, South Carolina for her first permanent duty station.

4.  On 13 February 1959 she was promoted to the rank of private/E-2 and on 1 July 1959 she was promoted to the rank of private first class/E-3.

5.  On 19 March 1960 she was assigned to Germany.

6.  On 11 April 1960 the applicant attempted to jump from a second floor window, but was prevented from doing so by the other women she was with.  

7.  On 12 April 1960 the applicant requested permission from her dispensary physician to see a psychiatrist and was subsequently seen the same day on an emergency basis.  

8.  On 13 April 1960 the applicant told the psychiatrist she was having an increased difficulty with adjusting to the service.  She described feelings of apathy toward her work with periods of depression.  She further stated that she was disturbed as to the meaning of her trying to jump out of the window and that this episode led to her seeking assistance.

9.  The psychiatrist found that the applicant was not psychotic or severely psychoneurotic and had no mental disease or defect sufficient to warrant disposition under the provisions of AR 635-40.  However, after a thorough psychiatric examination, he diagnosed the applicant as having a passive aggressive reaction, chronic, and mild.  He stated that her condition was not amenable to hospitalization, treatment, disciplinary action, training, or rehabilitation.  He further stated that the applicant’s problems in adjustment to the service are so long-standing and so much a part of chronic underlying personality problems that they are not resolvable by continued service.

10.  The psychiatrist recommended to the command that the applicant be expeditiously separated via the provisions of AR 635-209 for current inability to adjust due to chronic underlying personality disorder.

11.  On 13 April 1960 upon the strong recommendation of the psychiatrist and after counseling the applicant the unit commander recommended the applicant be discharged under the provisions of AR 635-209 with a general discharge.  

12.  On 13 April 1960 the applicant acknowledged she had been interviewed and acknowledged her rights.  She declined counsel, waived a board of officers and did not submit a statement in her own behalf.

13.  On 16 April 1960 the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s discharge and issuance of a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  Accordingly, on 25 April 1960 she was discharged after completing 1 year, 6 months, and 13 days of her 3-year enlistment.

14.  Army Regulation 635-209, then in effect, established the policy and provided the procedures and guidance for the prompt elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unsuitable for further military service.  

15.  The Board notes that subsequent changes to the Army regulations governing the discharge of individuals due to unsuitability allow for the issuance of either a general or honorable discharge.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The characterization of the applicant’s discharge was determined by the regulation in effect at that time.

2.  The available records support that the applicant was discharged due to a personality disorder that existed prior to service and resulted in her inability to adjust.  There is no evidence of record to support that the applicant was ever a disciplinary problem.

3.  The Board concludes that under current regulations the applicant’s service would be characterized as fully honorable.  Therefore, the Board concludes that it would be proper and just to upgrade the applicant’s general, under honorable conditions discharge 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 25 April 1960.

2.  That the Department of the Army issue to the applicant an Honorable Discharge certificate the United States Army, dated 25 April 1960, in lieu of the general, under honorable conditions discharge of the same date now held by her.

BOARD VOTE:  

__CMF__  __JNS __  _TSK____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999024089	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991117	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19600425	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-209	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsuitability	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.