PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:           31 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000037246

	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. Chun		Director	
	Ms. McKim-Spilker		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James E. Vick		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelly		Member	
	Mr. John P. Infante		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, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to honorable.

3.  He states, in effect, that he needs his discharge upgraded for the purposes of employment.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that on 27 January 1971 he was inducted into the U.S. Army for a period of 2 years. He successfully completed basic combat training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Riley, Kansas, in military occupational specialty 64B (Heavy Vehicle Driver).  He remained at Fort Riley, Kansas, upon completion of AIT.

5.  The applicant’s record documents that the highest permanent rank he held on active duty was private/E-2 and the record contains no documented acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition.

6.  On 21 August 1971 the applicant departed AWOL and remained so absent until 26 August 1971 when he returned to military control at Fort Riley, Kansas.  The record is void of any punishment received by the applicant for the aforementioned AWOL, however, the DD Form 214 shows 18 days lost time.

7.  On 7 September 1971, upon recommendation of the unit commander, the applicant underwent a psychiatric examination.  The examiner diagnosed a severe maladjustment reaction with a noncommitment to productive goals, incapacity to respond to military situations, resentment to authority, and a tendency for AWOL.  He determined that the applicant’s adjustment disorder existed prior to entry into service and recommended administrative separation since the applicant could not adjust to the routine stress of military life. 

8.  On 23 September 1971, based upon the psychiatrist’s recommendation, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate discharge proceedings under the provisions of AR 635-212, paragraph 6(b), for unsuitability – character and behavior disorder, with a GD.  The commander noted that the applicant had been counseled on many occasions, placed in different job situations, and the applicant still did not respond to the efforts at rehabilitation. 

9.  On 5 October 1971 the applicant was discharged with a GD.  He was credited with 7 months and 21 days of active military service and 18 days lost time. 

10.  Army Regulations 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 6b(2), (4), and (6) provided that members with character and behavior disorders, alcoholism, and enuresis be subject to separation for unsuitability.  An HD or GD was normally considered appropriate.
11.  There is no evidence in the applicant’s records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15 year statute of limitations. 

12.  Department of the Army message #302221Z March 1976, changed “character and behavior disorder” to “personality disorder.”

13.  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, 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. 

14.  Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 1332.28, 11 August 1982, Discharge Review Board Procedures and Standards, establishes uniform policies, procedures, and standards for the review of discharges or dismissals under Title 10, United States Code, Section 1553, and applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Military Departments.  Section 4 of that Directive sets forth the objectives for discharge review.  It provides that a discharge shall be deemed proper unless it is determined that a change in policy by the military service of which the applicant was a member, made expressly retroactive to the type of discharge under consideration, requires a change in the discharge. Furthermore, a discharge shall be deemed to be equitable unless there is substantial doubt the applicant would have received the same discharge if relevant current policies and procedures had been available to the applicant at the time the discharge was considered.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s record of service does not meet the criteria for a general, under honorable conditions discharge under current Army regulations.

2.  Had the ADRB reviewed the applicant’s discharge under DOD Directive 1332.28, it is reasonable to presume that his discharge would have been upgraded based on the application of the current regulation for discharges because of personality disorder. 

3.  Although DOD Directive 1332.28 provides policy for review of discharges for Discharge Review Boards, it appears that this Board should adopt the standards set forth in that Directive for this particular case. 

4.  Accordingly, in view of the current standards for discharges issued because of a personality disorder, a discharge under honorable conditions was unduly harsh and unjust.  It would now be appropriate to correct the inequity and upgrade the applicant’s characterization of service to honorable.
5.  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 to show that the individual concerned was separated from the service with an Honorable Discharge Certificate on 5 October 1971.  

2.  That the Department of the Army issue to the individual concerned an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 5 October 1971, in lieu of the discharge under honorable conditions of the same date now held by him.

BOARD VOTE:  

__JEV__  __SK____  __JPI___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000037246	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000531	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19711005	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212  	
DISCHARGE REASON	144.4000.0000	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 	144.9442.0000	
2. 	144.9500.0000	
3. 		
4.		
5.		
6.