PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:            19 April 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028627

	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.  

	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James P. Huber		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		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 undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge and that the reason be changed. 

3.  The applicant states in effect, that he has a non-service connected disability that has left him permanently paralyzed.  He submits a denial for veteran’s benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs.  Counsel provided no additional information.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he graduated from high school and on 18 September 1967, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years and airborne training.  His Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) score was 17, Category IV.   On 9 November 1967, while attending advanced individual training (AIT), at Fort Dix, New Jersey, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for gambling in the unit area.  His punishment included 14 days restriction and extra duty.  He completed AIT and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman).  

5.	On 27 January 1968, he was assigned to Fort Benning, Georgia, to attend the 
Basic Airborne course.  He completed the requirements for the course and on 
28 July 1968, he was assigned to the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) where he served with Company C, 3rd Battalion, 506th Infantry, 101st Airborne Division.  

6.  On 26 August 1968, he began complaining of having severe headaches and blurred vision.  He was diagnosed of suffering from conversion reaction, manifested by headaches, diploia, and blurred vision.  LOD:  Yes, existed prior to service.  The recommendation was that he be transferred to a support area for 1 month.  It was felt that rehabilitative efforts would be effective.  He continued to be medically evaluated. However, doctors could find nothing wrong with him.  In September 1968, he admitted that he had lied about his medical condition in an attempt to get out of duty in the RVN. 

7.  He was absent without leave (AWOL) from his unit from 26-28 September 1968.  His punishment is not a matter of record.

8.  On 27 November 1968, he was convicted by a special court-martial of violating a general regulation by carrying an M-16 rifle with a magazine inserted and a round chambered into a secured area on 29 August 1968, and of two charges of disobeying a lawful order on 23 September 1968.  He was sentenced to reduction from pay grade E-3 to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of $73 pay per month for 6 months and confinement at hard labor for 6 months

9.  On 16 December 1968, while confined in the US Army Vietnam (USARV) 
Stockade, the applicant was medically evaluated and described as being “a suspicious, very angry and hostile individual.”  He repressed his feelings thereby causing anxiety headaches.  The examining physician stated:  He does not fit the neurotic pattern, he is seen more as a character and behavior disorder.”  The impression was a paranoid personality that was chronic, severe, manifested by suspicion, stubbornness, schizoid tactics, and a tendency towards projection and displacement.  A second impression was “passive aggressive reaction that was chronic, severe; manifested by stubbornness, procrastination, inefficiency and passive obstructionism.”  The recommendation was weekly follow-ups.

10.	  On 23 December 1968, the applicant was transferred from the USARV stockade 
to the psychiatric ward of the 93rd Evacuation Hospital.  At the time of his admission he complained of severe headaches.  He was extremely agitated and belligerent, he claimed to have been confined in a steel connex.  He felt that he was being treated unjustly.  In addition to receiving treatment for his headaches, he was treated for infectious hepatitis and an inflamed cyst over his left eye.  He was diagnosed to have no neurological impairment.  “His headaches were determined to be functional in origin. The headaches made him an ineffective soldier, and would most likely persist, if he remained in his present environment.  He showed a marked impairment for further overseas duty.”  Further, he was diagnosed to have “psychophysiologic cardiovascular disorder, acute and severe; severe stress from duty in a combat zone; severe predisposition, history of schizoid tendencies with use of projection, also dependency needs; marked impairment for further overseas duty.  Condition on discharge improved.  Line of duty: Yes.  Disposition:  Air evacuation out of the country to a medical facility for treatment of infectious hepatitis.”  On 
31 December 1969, he was transferred to Tripler General Hospital, Hawaii, for treatment of hepatitis.  On an unknown date he was transferred back to the USARV Stockade.

11.  On 27 March 1969, he was again transferred from the USARV Stockade to the 93rd Evacuation Hospital.  He was extremely agitated, he shouted incoherently, and complained of severe headaches.  He had many medical examinations, to include a neurological work-up.  Doctors were unable to make a medical determination as to what was causing his headaches.  However, the examining physician stated that “he displayed evidence of thought disorder manifested by auditory hallucinations and paranoid delusional ideation.  His memory was intact, his judgement was poor and he lacked insight.  There was also evidence of psychosis.  While hospitalized, he reported hearing voices and seeing visions of his mother.”  The recommendation was that he be handled through medical channels and that he should not be returned to the RVN.  The diagnosis was “schizophrenic reaction, paranoid type, chronic, severe, stress service in the RVN.  Predisposition: severe.  Impairment:  Marked.  Line of duty: Yes.  Condition on discharge:  Improved.  Disposition:  Air evacuation out of the country.”

12.  On 29 March 1969, the unexecuted portion of his sentence to confinement adjudged on 27 November 1968 was suspended.
13.  On 20 April 1969, he returned to the United States and on 4 June 1969, he reported to Fort Bragg, North Carolina for duty.  

14.  On 6 December 1969, NJP action was taken against him for being absent from his unit the very same day.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-4 to pay grade E-3 (suspended) and forfeiture of $25.00 pay per month for 2 months.

15.  On 21 December 1969, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for making a false official statement to the Inspector General’s Office on 
4 November 1969.  He was also charged with assaulting two other soldiers by threatening them with a .32 caliber pistol and for being disorderly on 
20 December 1969.  He was placed in pretrial confinement.

16.  On 31 January 1970, while in pretrial confinement, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  Counsel advised him that the offenses for which he was charged could lead to a punitive discharge.  He stated that he understood the ramifications of a UD, and he did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  

17.  On 10, 16 and 17 February 1970, the applicant’s unit, battalion and brigade commanders recommended that his request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 be disapproved.  All three commanders cited the seriousness of the applicant’s offenses as the reason for their recommendation for disapproval.

18.  On 16 February 1970, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation by professionally trained personnel.  He was diagnosed to have an antisocial personality disorder.  He was diagnosed to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and to be able to participate in board proceedings.  The examining official believed that he would not adjust to further military service and further rehabilitative efforts would probably be non-productive.   The recommendation was that he be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.

19.  In an undated letter, the applicant wrote to the Post Commander, Fort Bragg, that he believed his unit commander’s reason for recommending that his request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, be disapproved was based on racial prejudice.

20.  On 6 March 1970, competent authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge.  On 10 March 1970, he was separated with a UD for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  He had completed 2 years, 1 month, and 24 days of active military service and he had 119 days lost time due to being AWOL and in confinement.

21.  His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows that he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, and the Parachute Badge.

22.  On 8 July 1982, the applicant personally appeared before the Army Discharge Review Board and he was denied an upgrade of his discharge.

23.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of a UD.

24.  Army Regulation 635-200, currently in effect, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-13 provides, in part, when separation is because of a personality disorder (formally considered a character and behavior disorder), the service of a soldier separated per this paragraph will be characterized as honorable unless an entry level separation is required under chapter 3, section III.  A GD may be awarded to a soldier who has been convicted of an offense by general court-martial or more than one special court-martial in the current enlistment, period of obligated service, or any extension thereof.

25.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-3 provides, in part, when the separation of soldiers for the convenience of the Government is the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army (SA).  Except as delegated by this regulation or by special Department of the Army directives, it will be accomplished only by the SA’s authority.  The separation of any soldier of the Army under this authority will be based on a SA determination that separation is in the best interests of the Army. 

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Even though the applicant’s records indicate that he graduated from high school, he only achieved an AFQT score of 17 (i.e., mental category IV, and was classified as a slow learner).

2.  As early as December 1968, he was evaluated and diagnosed to have a character and behavior disorder.  Further, he displayed a paranoid personality that was chronic to severe, he displayed schizoid tactics, and he displayed passive aggressive reaction that was chronic to severe, manifested by inefficiency and passive obstructionism.  In 1969, he was diagnosed to suffer from schizophrenic reaction, paranoid type, chronic to severe.  In 1970, he was diagnosed to have an antisocial personality disorder.  As such, the Board has determined that through no fault of his own, he did not posses the capacity to become a satisfactory soldier. 

3.  The Board does not condone the applicant’s actions of misconduct.  However, it should be noted that he should have been processed for discharge for unsuitability or with a character and behavior disorder long before he committed the offenses for which he was discharged. 

4.  In view of the foregoing, the Board found that the applicant’s inability to adapt to military life and his associated misconduct was mitigated by his mental competence at the time that he served.

5.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking cognizance of the applicant’s mental status, the Board determined that the interest of justice would best be served by changing his characterization of service to a general discharge. The reason should also be changed to secretarial authority.

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:

a.  by showing that the UD the individual concerned received on 
10 March 1970 is void and is without force or effect; 

b.  by showing that the individual concerned was separated from the service with a general discharge on 10 March 1970;

c.  by showing that he received a general discharge on 10 March 1970, in accordance with paragraph 5-3, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of Secretarial Authority; and

d.  by issuing to the individual concerned a General Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 10 March 1970, in lieu of the discharge certificate of the same date now held by him.
2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

__jph___  __eja____  __vbc___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		__James P. Huber____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028627	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000419	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19700310	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,  	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the Good of the Service in Lieu of Court-
Martial	
BOARD DECISION	(Partial GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A70.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.