PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:            13 June 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999029106

	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	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon 		Chairperson	
	Mr. John H. Kern		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis 		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 (GD) under honorable conditions be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.

3.  The applicant states that he received a GD even though he had no disciplinary action taken against him.

4.  The applicant’s military records were partially burned in the National Personnel Records Center fire of 1973.  

5.  The information available shows that he completed three honorable periods of service prior to the enlistment under review.  He served honorably in the Army of the United States from 17 September-7 October 1946.  He served honorably in the Regular Army (RA) from 8 October 1946-23 September 1949 and from 
8 February 1950-30 September 1952.  On 1 October 1952, he reenlisted in the RA for a period of 6 years.  He enlisted in pay grade E-3.  He served in various military occupational specialties (MOS’s) to include:  MOS 631 (Wheel Vehicle Mechanic), MOS 511 (Carpenter), MOS 760 (Supply Clerk) and MOS 
133 (Vehicle Driver).

6.  The available records show that the applicant chronically attended sick call to the point that his responsibilities were neglected and other service members had to take on his duties.  Between October 1957 and May 1958, the applicant went on sick call a total of 15 times for various reasons to include:  “nausea, dizzy spells, headaches, a cut hand, pharyngitis, vomiting, conjunctivitis and for a boil on his face.”  He also went to Mental Hygiene Services and to the Ear, Nose and Throat Clinic.  

7.  On 12 May 1958, a mental status evaluation shows that a Medical Corps Officer, the Chief of Mental Hygiene Consultation Services at the US Army Hospital, Fort Meade, Maryland, found that the applicant suffered from “passive aggressive reaction, chronic, moderate, manifested by hostility, frequent sick call, difficulties in sexual function and somatic complaints.  Impairment:  Severe for continued military duty.”  The recommendation was for an administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, unsuitability. 

8.  Further, he was found to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.  He had no disqualifying mental defects sufficient to warrant separation form the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40.

9.  On 2 June 1958, his commander recommended that a board of officers be convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, to determine whether the applicant should be discharged for unsuitability before the expiration of his term of service.  

10.  On 5 June 1958, the applicant was notified to appear before a board of officers that would investigate his suitability for further service.  

11.  On 9 June 1958, the applicant appeared before the board with counsel.  He was advised of the specific evidence and allegations against him.  He was given an opportunity to present evidence in his own behalf, to testify in person, or to present a written statement.  The applicant’s counsel stated that the applicant had every intention of honorably meeting his responsibilities and he respectfully requested that he be allowed to transfer to another unit and to continue to serve. 

12.  The board of officers concluded that the applicant was unsuitable for further military service due to a character and behavior disorders and disruptive reactions to acute or special stress.  The board recommended that the applicant be separated from the service under the provisions of paragraph 3a, Army Regulation 635-209, for unsuitability with a GD. 

13.  On 25 June 1958, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-209, by reason of unsuitability due to a character and behavior disorder with a GD.  He had completed 5 years, 8 months and 24 days on the enlistment under review and he had completed a total of 5 years and 
8 months of prior active military service.  He had no recorded indisciplines.

14.  The available evidence does not show that the applicant has ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

15.  Army Regulation 635-209, in effect at the time set forth the basic policy, and guidance for the prompt elimination of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 3a of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of individuals determined to be unsuitable for further service by reason of a character and behavior disorder, lack of physical stamina, apathy, defective attitude, or an inability to expend effort constructively.  Under this regulation and paragraph, a GD was considered appropriate.

16.  Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-13 provides that a soldier may be separated for personality disorder, not amounting to disability under Army Regulation 635-40, that interferes with assignment to or performance of duty.  The regulation requires that the condition is a deeply ingrained maladaptive pattern of behavior of long duration that interferes with the soldiers ability to perform duty.  The regulation also directs that commanders will not take action prescribed in this chapter in lieu of disciplinary action, requires that the diagnosis concludes the disorder is so severe that the soldier’s ability to function in the military environment is significantly impaired, and states that separation for personality disorder is not appropriate when separation is warranted under other administrative or medical reasons.  Army policy requires the award of a fully honorable discharge in such cases.

17.  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.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, then in effect, with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.

2.  Further, the applicant’s discharge was appropriate, at the time, even though he had no disciplinary action taken against him.  The quality of his service was not consistent with the Army’s standard for acceptable performance of military personnel.

3.  The Board does not condone the applicant’s actions.  However, it should be noted that had he been discharged as a result of a character and behavior disorder under current standards he would have received a fully honorable discharge. 

4.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking cognizance of the fact that the applicant had problems adjusting, the Board determined that the interest of justice would best be served by granting him a fully honorable discharge under current standards.  The reason should also be changed to Secretarial Authority.

5.  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: 

a.  by showing that the GD the individual concerned received on 
25 June 1958 is void and is without force or effect; 

b.  by showing that he received a fully honorable discharge on 25 June 1958 in accordance with paragraph 5-3, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of Secretarial Authority; and

c.  by issuing to the individual concerned an Honorable Discharge Certificate dated 25 June 1958, in lieu of the General Discharge Certificate of the same date now held by him.

BOARD VOTE:  

__eb____  __jhk___  ___bje___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		__Elizabeth Buchanon__
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999029106	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000613	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19580625	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-209 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A86.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.8600	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.