PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           12 September 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000041572

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred Eichorn		Member	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter		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 discharge be changed to a medical discharge.

3.  The applicant states that his medical records state he fell on glass and cut his hand.  The truth is he cracked up and ran his hand through a glass pane. The lie in his records has prevented him from getting VA help.  He was given a choice of either a court-martial or an honorable discharge.  His nerves were torn up and he was scared of the words “court-martial” so chose the discharge.  Since his discharge he has had several nervous breakdowns.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that after having had prior service in the U. S. Navy Reserve, he enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 March 1963.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 910.00 (Medical Corpsman).  His service medical records are not available.

5.  On 22 January 1964, the applicant was psychiatrically evaluated and found to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and mentally capable of understanding and participating in board proceedings.  No disqualifying mental defects sufficient to warrant disposition through medical channels were found.  He was diagnosed with emotional instability, manifested by poor adjustment to military life, use of somatic complaints in a manipulative manner and low frustration tolerance.  The condition represented a basic character and behavior disorder which was not amenable to hospitalization or treatment in a military setting.  He was cleared from a psychiatric viewpoint for administrative action as deemed appropriate by his command.

6.  An 18 February 1964 addendum to the psychiatric report noted that the findings and diagnosis remained essentially unchanged from that report.  The applicant’s enuresis had been increasing in frequency according to medical records and his considerable degree of emotional instability appeared to be causing continuous difficulty in his unit.  

7.  On 27 February 1964, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for willfully damaging government property by running his fist through a window.  He was reduced to Private (PV2), E-2.

8.  Discharge proceedings under Army Regulation 635-209 for unsuitability due to enuresis and apathy were initiated on the applicant.  On 28 February 1964, the applicant was advised of the basis for the discharge.  He was afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel and declined. He waived all rights to appear before a board of officers.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
9.  On 18 March 1964, the applicant’s commander recommended his discharge.  He noted in a statement that the applicant’s medical records attest to the fact that he had enuresis which was probably caused by character and behavior disorders.  He noted that the applicant had run his fist through a window in the barracks on 14 February 1964 and had been admitted to the psychiatric ward on 30 January 1964 because he had slashed his wrists.  

10.  In a sworn statement, the applicant’s first sergeant stated that on                  14 February 1964 he had returned to the dayroom to find a glass pane broken and the applicant, who was dayroom orderly, had reported to the dispensary.  On the applicant’s return he told the first sergeant that he had stumbled over someone’s foot and fell against the glass.  

11.  On 13 April 1964, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant receive a general discharge.

12.  On 22 April 1964, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-2, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, unsuitability, with a general discharge.  He had completed 1 year, 1 month and 19 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.

13.  Army Regulation 635-209 set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unsuitability.  That regulation provided, in pertinent part, that a member with a character or behavior disorder, disorder of intelligence, or transient personality disorder due to acute or special stress and was unlikely to develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and or become a satisfactory soldier, would be discharged for unsuitability.

14.  In 1967, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge.  

15.  Army Regulation 40-501 governs medical fitness standards for enlistment and separation.  Paragraphs 3-35 (personality, sexual, or factitious disorders; disorders of impulse control not elsewhere classified; psychoactive disorders) and 3-36 (adjustment disorders) provide that these conditions may render an individual administratively unfit rather than unfit because of physical disability and will be dealt with through appropriate administrative channels.

16.  Army Regulation 635-200, which superseded Army Regulation 635-209, was revised on 1 December 1976, following settlement of a civil suit.  Thereafter, the type of discharge and the character of service were 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’s administrative separation on 22 April 1964 was accomplished in accordance with regulations then in effect.

2.  The applicant was not found to have any disqualifying mental defects which would have warranted disposition through medical channels, so it would not be appropriate to change his discharge to a medical discharge.

3.  The applicant’s service medical records are not available and so the Board cannot determine whether or not an error exists in those records.  

4.  The applicant’s psychiatric report did not diagnose him with a personality disorder.  However, the report did state that his condition represented a basic character and behavior disorder (now known as personality disorder).  In light of that fact and the applicant’s overall service record, it would be appropriate to upgrade his discharge to fully honorable as directed by the above-referenced Army memorandums.

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 by showing that the applicant was separated from the service with an Honorable Discharge Certificate on 22 April 1964.

2.  That the Department issue to him an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 22 April 1964, in lieu of the general discharge of the same date now held by him.

3.  That the applicant be issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting the corrections noted above.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__cmf___  __fe____  ________  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  __cjs___  DENY APPLICATION

			Calvin M. Fowler
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041572	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000912	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19640422	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-209 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A42.00	
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.