PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           20 July 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028943

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Ms. Ann M. Campbell 		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth L. Wright		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 was separated from the Army for medical conditions, not due to misconduct or failure to conform to military standards; consequently, he should have been released with an honorable separation.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Army for three years on 17 February 1961 and was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas for training.  

5.  A 28 February 1961 health record indicates that the applicant wanted to talk about his classification as 4F by the selective service board.  He stated that he had some blood vessels tied off two years ago and was now having pain in the same area, and was afraid he was having a vascular breakdown.  He stated that he had a vascular malformation of the right side of his neck and face and was operated on.  He stated that he also had ocular surgery for bilateral external “squent” and “spinal meningitis.”  He was issued a 4F classification.  He was told not to do any heavy lifting.  He now complained of pain in his right neck and side associated with heavy lifting.  The applicant was examined and the examining doctor determined that there was no evidence of recurrent vascular disorder or neurologic defect.  He was again seen on 1 March 1961, still complaining of neck pain.  His health records were reviewed, showing none of the history that he recounted, documented.  There was no change in his physical examination. The examining physician stated that the applicant was very poorly motivated, and in his opinion, might eventually require administrative separation.

6.  In a 7 March 1961 letter to an officer in the dispensary at Fort Hood, a civilian physician from Columbus, Ohio stated that the applicant had been his patient for several years, was known to have been of somewhat unstable psyche, and was occasionally seen complaining of various forms of neck pain that were difficult to substantiate clinically.  He had a hemangioma excised from his neck with no complications.  The doctor stated that there had never been any real anatomic explanation for his difficulty.  He was admitted to the hospital in 1960 because of an extreme tachycardia, treated, and discharged without difficulty.  The doctor went on to say that it was his guess that the applicant would be a frequent visitor to the dispensary.  

7.  The applicant was seen by medical personnel again on five more occasions in March for the same problem, pain in his face and neck.  He was discharged to duty on 15 March 1961 with the comment that there was no need for further studies.  He was advised on 22 March 1961 to try and continue his duties until he was discharged.

8.  A 17 March 1961 report of psychiatric evaluation recounted the applicant’s reports on sick call complaining of pains in his neck, ear, and head.  That report indicated that the applicant was treated, to include a period of hospitalization.  The examining psychiatrist stated that the applicant’s symptoms far outweighed the evidence of organic pathology.  He did state that the applicant had said that he was hospitalized at the state hospital in Cambridge, Ohio, once for two weeks following an episode of erratic and bizarre behavior during which he destroyed a good deal of his home furnishings, and the second time for almost three months following surgical procedures.  The applicant stated that he had been given many medications and put in various occupational therapy groups.  The examining physician diagnosed the applicant’s condition as schizoid personality, chronic, severe; manifested by prior history of decompensatory episodes, current somatization reaction, and poor performance in a routine military situation.  Impairment was marked.  Line of duty – No, EPTS (existed prior to service).  That official stated that the applicant had no disqualifying mental or physical defects sufficient to warrant a medical discharge, the applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right.  The applicant was psychiatrically fit for any administrative action deemed appropriate. He stated that no further attempt at rehabilitation should be made, and recommended that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209. 

9.  On 22 March 1961 the applicant’s commanding officer recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209.  He stated that the applicant was constantly complaining about pain in his neck, ear, and head, and had missed a good deal of training.  The applicant’s preoccupation with his physical condition was far from ordinary.  The applicant was isolated and was unable to make friends.  He has been transferred to several squads because of his poor performance.  The applicant was counseled by officers and NCO’s and was sent to the mental hygiene clinic for their recommendation.  That official stated that he later discovered that the applicant’s statement to him (the commanding officer) that doctors were unable to treat his condition was false, discovered that the applicant was indeed classified 4F, and discovered that medical personnel had found 
nothing physically wrong with the applicant.

10.  A platoon leader stated that he talked to the applicant because he appeared to be slow in grasping the fundamentals of a trainfire exercise, but afterward felt that the applicant had no desire to learn and did not intend to make an effort to do so.  An NCO stated that the applicant had been assigned to his platoon, and had been a chronic sick call rider.  He transferred him from one squad to another to ease his personal troubles, but found out he did not have any personal troubles.  He stated that the applicant was not trying to adjust to military life. 

11.  On 29 March 1961 the separation authority approved the request and directed that the applicant receive a general discharge.

12.  A 30 March 1961 report of medical examination indicates that the applicant was medically qualified for separation with a physical profile serial of 1 1 1 1 3 1.  In the report of medical history he furnished for the examination, the applicant stated that he was in fair health.

13.  The applicant was discharged on 6 April 1961 under honorable conditions.  He had 1 month and 20 days of service.

14.  Army Regulation 635-209, in effect at the time, set forth the policy and prescribed procedures for eliminating enlisted personnel for unsuitability.  Action was to be taken to discharge an individual for unsuitability when, in the commander's opinion, it was clearly established that: the individual was unlikely to develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and/or become a satisfactory soldier or the individual's psychiatric or physical condition was such as to not warrant discharge for disability.  Unsuitability included inaptitude, character and behavior disorders, disorders of intelligence and transient personality disorders due to acute or special stress, apathy, defective attitude, and inability to expend effort constructively, enuresis, chronic alcoholism, and homosexuality.  Evaluation by a medical officer was required and, when psychiatric indications are involved, the medical officer must be a psychiatrist, if one was available.  A general or honorable discharge was considered appropriate.   

15.  Army Regulation 635-200, currently in effect, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-13 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for personality disorder (not
amounting to a disability under Army Regulation 635-40), a deeply-ingrained maladaptive pattern of behavior which interferes with the individual's ability to perform.  Prior counseling with a view to correcting deficiencies is mandatory.
Separation because of personality disorder is authorized only if the diagnosis concludes that the disorder is so severe that the soldier’s ability to function effectively in the military environment is significantly impaired.  The service of a soldier separated for a personality disorder will be characterized as honorable unless an entry level separation is required.
16.  Paragraph 5-3 of Army Regulation 635-200 provides for the separation of soldiers for the convenience of the Government under the authority of the Secretary of the Army.  

17.  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.  The applicant obviously had a personality disorder as indicated in the           17 March 1961 report of psychiatric evaluation.  A soldier separated for a personality disorder, by today’s standards, is entitled to an honorable discharge.  Furthermore, Department of the Army has stated 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.   

2.  Consequently, the applicant’s discharge should be upgraded to honorable under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-3, Secretarial Authority.  He should be issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate.

3.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by:

     a.  showing that the applicant was discharged on 6 April 1961 with an honorable characterization of service; and 

     b.  issuing the applicant an Honorable Discharge Certificate.

BOARD VOTE:  

___sac__  ___amc__  ___klw__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028943	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000720	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.