PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            13 January 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999026161

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

	The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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, in effect, that his general discharge for unsuitability be upgraded to an honorable discharge based on a more acceptable reason. 

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he should have been allowed to serve out the remainder of his enlistment and should have received an honorable discharge instead of the general discharge he received.  He goes on to state that the neuropsychiatrist recommended that he be allowed to serve the remainder of his enlistment and opined that he never should have been allowed to enter the Army.  In support of his application he submits a copy of the commander’s request for a psychiatric evaluation, a copy of the neuropsychiatric evaluation, and letters from a physician who is assisting him in obtaining an upgrade of his discharge.

4.  The applicant’s military records were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri which destroyed millions of service records.  However, records obtained from alternate sources as well as the applicant show that he enlisted in Montgomery, Alabama on 10 August 1950 for a period of 3 years.  He was married at the time of his enlistment and his education was limited to grammar school.  He served in Korea for 1 year and 20 days and was awarded the Korean Service Medal with three bronze service stars, the United Nations Service Medal, and the Combat Infantryman Badge.

5.  On 17 November 1952, while stationed at Fort Bliss, Texas as a field wireman, the applicant’s commander submitted a request to have the applicant undergo a psychiatric evaluation.  He indicated that the applicant had been transferred to the company on 15 May 1952, that he had been AWOL for short periods at a time on seven different occasions since 1 June 1952, that he had been given nonjudicial punishment on each of these occasions and one occasion for assault, that he had been counseled by the commander, that he was insolent and insubordinate towards officers and NCO’s, that his character was poor, his efficiency was unsatisfactory, and that he had been convicted by summary   court-martials on two occasions for AWOL and failure to repair.  

6.  The psychiatric evaluation dated 20 March 1953 indicates that the applicant was deemed a mental defective, that he had and IQ of 67, and a mental age of 9 years and 4 months.  He further opined that the applicant was completely illiterate, that he could not write anything but his own name, and that his reading ability is so low that he could not be placed in any grade level.  Additionally, he opined that there was no question that the difficulties he had gotten himself into were the result of his low intellectual functioning.  He stated that the applicant was not actually a bad soldier nor did he lack motivation.  He was simply a moron and should not have been allowed in the Army.  He also stated that since the applicant had managed to struggle through for 2½ years of his enlistment, the Army would be justified in keeping him in the service for the remainder of his enlistment and that a tolerant attitude toward him be imposed based on his mental deficiency.  Additionally, the psychiatrist recommended that he be barred from reenlistment. 

7.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.  However, they do contain a properly constituted report of separation (DD Form 214) which shows that the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions on 30 June 1953 under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-369 for unsuitability based on traits of character rendering retention in the service undesirable.  He had served 2 years, 8 months, and 29 days of total active service and had 52 days of lost time due to AWOL. 

8.  Army Regulation 615-369, in effect at the time, provided guidance for the separation of enlisted personnel for unsuitability based on a demonstrated lack of adaptability for military service because of a character and behavior disorder.  The individual could receive an honorable or general discharge when discharge was recommended.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200, the regulation that superceded Army Regulation 615-369 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 a 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 upgrades 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 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.  The evidence of records shows that the applicant’s administrative separation on 30 June 1953 was accomplished in accordance with regulations then in effect.

2.  However, the applicant’s limited education, test scores and mental deficiency clearly indicate that he was unsuited to military life.  While his behavior is not condoned by the Board, the general discharge appears to be unduly harsh considering that the evidence of record shows that he served to the best of his ability.  It appears that due to his mental deficiency, as diagnosed by a psychiatrist, he was incapable of meeting the standards of the Army and was unable to comprehend and react to instructions in a manner that would be considered normal behavior for most soldiers.

3.  While the applicant clearly was not suited for military service from the very beginning, the Department chose to keep him in the service until 3 months prior to the expiration of his term of service and contrary to the recommendation of the psychiatrist, separated him from the service with a general discharge for unsuitability.  While the Board agrees that he was unsuitable for military service, the Board believes that the above mentioned memorandums should be applied to this case and that 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 discharged from the service with an Honorable Discharge Certificate on 30 June 1953.

2.  That the Department of the Army issue to the individual concerned an Honorable Discharge Certificate dated 30 June 1953 in lieu of the General Discharge Certificate now had by him.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__mvt___  ___ewl__  __ew____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____Ernest M. Willcher____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999026161	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/01/13	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1953/06/30	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 615-369	
DISCHARGE REASON	547/unsuit	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  547 	144.4000/A40.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.