PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           9 November 2000   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000042834

	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. Anita L. McKim-Spilker		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Mr. Orville W. Troesch		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Lutz		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 honorable.

3.  He states, in effect, that he believes his discharge to be unjust because by today’s standards, a youth of his age and dysfunctional background would have been denied entry into the service or have been medically discharged; that he has a chemical imbalance and manic clinical depression and is in receipt of Social Security disability benefits; and, that because standards and conditions change over the years, that the circumstances of his case should be examined in view of these changing standards. 

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted on 1 September 1961 in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.  At the time of enlistment, he was 
17 years old.  The record also shows that he was the 7th of 8 children in an extremely abusive home.  He enlisted in order to escape the dysfunction of his family life.

5.  The record also indicates the applicant was unable to complete high school.  The applicant attended a public school in Union City, New Jersey, as a special education student.  He attended regular elementary school through the 6th grade where he had trouble with reading and was 2 years behind grade level.  He was assigned to special education after psychological test scores showed him to be in the borderline range of functioning and his educational achievement tests reflected a generalized retardation.  The applicant graduated from special education class where his reading improved but not enough to warrant regular class placement or high school attendance.  At this point, the applicant enlisted in the Army.   

6.  The applicant did not complete basic combat training.  On 14 September 1961 he was convicted by a summary court-martial for violation of Article 86, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, for three short periods of absence without leave (AWOL) totaling 6 days.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 
1 month and a forfeiture of $50. 

7.  The applicant was in confinement from 12 September-7 October 1961.

8.  On 5 December 1961 the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial for a second period of AWOL (10 October-20 November 1961).  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and a forfeiture of $52 pay per month for 6 months.

9.  The applicant was in confinement from 22 November 1961 to 28 February 1962.

10.  On 15 December 1961, while in confinement, the applicant underwent a neuropsychiatric examination.  The examiner indicated that his insight and judgment were limited; that he would continue to “act out” if allowed to remain in the military; and, that he believed the applicant was useless to the service.  No neuropsychiatric disease was noted and the examiner did not indicate why he believed the applicant was useless to the service.  

11.  On 1 February 1962 the applicant’s commander recommended him for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-208, by reason of unfitness.  The commander indicated that he initiated separation procedures because of the applicant’s frequent AWOLs. 

12.  On 21 February 1962 the separating authority approved the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of AR 635-208 by reason of unfitness and issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, DD Form 258A.  Accordingly, he was discharged for unfitness on 6 March 1962, and credited with 16 days of active military service.  At the time of his discharge the applicant was 17 years old.

13.  Army Regulation 635-208, then in effect, provided in pertinent part, the policies, procedures, and guidance for the prompt elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unfit for further military service.  An UD was normally considered appropriate. 

14.  On 23 April 1971 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge.  In his application, the applicant stated that he found it very difficult to adjust to the Army and that he went on sick call a number of times.  He indicated that he was interviewed several times by an Army psychiatrist when he was in confinement.  He stated that the psychiatrist advised him that he had emotional problems, but that he would not receive treatment.

15.  On 22 July 1982 the applicant provided testimony at a personal hearing before the ADRB in support of his request for an upgrade of his discharge.  The applicant testified that he came from a large family and that the environment at home was very “stressful.”  He stated that he was characterized as having a learning disability, and since he was unable to continue in school, he enlisted in the Army to escape his home life.  He further testified that his Army experience was also stressful and that he was afraid, and that out of desperation he went AWOL.  After leaving the Army, he was afraid to admit he needed counseling, and he finally began psychiatric treatment in 1976 when he could not longer deny his need for help.  The ADRB denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. 

16.  The record also contains a 20 May 1969 statement from the Supervisor, Special Education, Union City Public Schools.  He indicated that in his opinion the applicant should never have been inducted into the military as his mental age lagged far behind his chronological age, and that because he was 17 years old having only completed 8th grade special education, the Army should have consulted with his school counselors.  The supervisor also stated that after he left the Army, the applicant returned to the Union City Public Schools in 1962 because a special education high school was then available.  The applicant remained in high school through his eligibility date (June 1963), however, he was unable to complete high school, and subsequently left to try to get a high school equivalency certificate (GED).    

17.  A 20 May 1969 statement from Dr. Michael Glenn, the Director of the Adult Night Clinic, Catholic Community Services, Mount Carmel Guild, indicates that the applicant struggled to obtain his GED and that finally at the age of 25, after
8 years, he obtained his GED in 1964.  He further indicated that the applicant had never been in trouble with the law; that he was working steadily; that he was aware of his difficulties; and that psychotherapy had been recommended, but denied.  He concluded by stating that the applicant was a hard worker and that his most cherished desire was to get ahead in his education and employment.  

18.  The available evidence also includes a February 1977 psychiatric evaluation from Dr. Antonio Fernandez, of the Mount Carmel Guild Mental Health Center.  He indicated that the applicant had a traumatic childhood history; that he harbored great hatred and anger toward his father; that he joined the Army to get away from his father; that the applicant presented as insecure, indecisive and dependent, with feelings of guilt and depression.  He diagnosed the applicant with anxiety with depressive features in a dependent personality. 

19.  A 22 January 1980 letter from Dr. Anthony Sidoti, Staff Psychologist, Mount Carmel Guild Mental Health Center, indicated that he was seeing the applicant in treatment on a weekly basis since February 1977.  He indicated that the applicant had been diagnosed by two psychiatrists as severely neurotic, with extreme anxiety and depression in a dependent personality.  Dr. Sidoti’s evaluation, based on more contact with the applicant, placed him in the borderline range of functioning, a somewhat lower level than that designated by the other psychiatrists.  He found that the applicant’s emotional problems were long-lasting and originating from early childhood deficits.  He concluded that it was “highly unlikely that there was no psychopathology involved in the applicant’s behavior while he was in the service. “

20.  On 11 September 1981 the applicant underwent a neurodiagnostic evaluation.  The applicant completed various tests, to include:

	(a)  Bender Gestalt:  A test measuring an individual’s gross functioning in cognitive areas; specifically it is a measure indicating how an individual coordinates his hand-brain-eye in order to reproduce the material from visual stimuli.  This test is also an indicator of a person’s basic personality characteristics.  The applicant’s test results were reflective of anxiety and heightened emotionality as well as the presence of some probable neuropsychological dysfunctioning .

	(b)  Wide Range Achievement Test:  This is a standardized test measuring academic achievement for reading, spelling, and arithmetic.  The applicant’s grade equivalency in each subject (respectively) were:  6.9; 5.2; and 5.9.  The results show academic deficiencies in all probability related to limited experiential background.  

	(c)  Maudsley Personality Inventory:  This inventory is to measure two basic personality characteristics which are extrovercism and neuroticism.  The extrovercism scale is a measure of how quickly and easily the individual relates to the world around him and/or how he may react to incidents around him with the utilization of neurotic type defense mechanisms.  The applicant’s responses were reflective of introversive qualities as well as probable withdrawal trends.  In terms of neuroticism, he received a score placing him at the 99th percentile; this is indicative of general emotional lability and the ineffective utilization of neurotic type defense mechanisms.

	(d)  Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory:  This is a test with 
10 different scales which measure some qualities of personality.  It is a standardized measure of how an individual thinks and feels about himself, his environment, and other people.  The applicant’s scores depict an individual who displays significant deficits in ego functioning.  He presents a negative type self-image with indications of significant psychological problems.  There were indications of non-conformity in terms of his behavior pattern and he showed impulsivity as well as low frustration tolerance; restlessness and distractibility as well as maladaptive hyperactivity of both thought and action with associated irratibility; he utilizes repression and denial as well as projection of blame techniques; there are indications of some chronic, fixed patterns of behavior and thought; and, there are indications of depression and probable suicidal type ideations.  
   
	(e)  Rorschach:  This tests consists of 10 cards with ink blots on them.  It is a very unstructured situation in which the individual is asked to use his imagination in telling what he perceives on the various cards.  It tests personality and imagination.  The applicant’s protocol is indicative of limited introspection and some probable impulsivity as well as unreflected acts.  There are indications of heightened anxiety as well as hostility and some probable sadistic tendencies and/or impulses.  He is an individual who may handle emotional factors through withdrawal and/or retreat.  There are indications of marked social “distanciation” and general difficulties in terms of interrelating with others.  Depression is noted to a significant degree and there are indications of some associated hysterical type reactions.  There are indications of ambivalent feelings towards authority figures and some oppressive, painful anticipation of unpleasantness.  The applicant also demonstrated evidence of obsessive compulsive characteristics and passive dependency.  Finally, there are indications of an authoritative orientation with underlying suspiciousness and some demanding as well as dependent type qualities which may be reflected in passive-aggressive acts.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s administrative separation under the provisions of AR 635-208 by reason of unfitness was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The Board noted the following:  the applicant’s age at the time of enlistment and separation; his dysfunctional and traumatic home life prior to enlistment; his borderline range of functioning and his generalized level of retardation; and, the opinions of the educators who supported the applicant in his special education program while he was in grammar and high school.  

3.  The Board also noted that the applicant’s treating psychiatrist found that the applicant’s emotional problems were long-standing and originating from early childhood deficits.  

4.  Given the evidence now available to the Board, it is reasonable to assume that had the applicant’s command been fully aware of the magnitude of the applicant’s psychological/psychiatric problems, the applicant may have been processed for separation by reason of unsuitability instead of unfitness.

5.  The Board does not condone the applicant’s misconduct.  However, it noted that his offenses were violations of military rules and regulations and were not otherwise serious offenses against society.  

6.  Notwithstanding the applicant’s misconduct, the Board determined, and the evidence supports, that the documented psychological/psychiatric problems experienced by the applicant throughout his entire life, also severely impaired his ability to serve and mitigated the misconduct in question.  Accordingly, the Board concluded that the characterization of service is inequitable.

7.  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 a General Discharge Certificate on 6 March 1962.  

2.  That the Department of the Army issue to the individual concerned a General Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated
6 March 1962 in lieu of the discharge of the same date now held by him.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__JLP___  _OWT __  _BJL____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000042834	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001109	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19620306	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  	144.9324.0000	
 2.  	144.9306.0000	
 3.  	144.9402.0000	
 4.		
 5.		
 6.